Environmental product declaration of energy efficient, recycled ...

17. i 18. listopad 2016 · Cavtat Hrvatski savez građevinskih inženjera

Izjava o utjecaju na okoliš predgotovljenog zidnog panela izrađenog od recikliranog betona Bojan Milovanović, Ivana Banjad Pečur, Nina Štirmer, Marina Alagušić, Ivana Carević Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Građevinski fakultet

Sažetak Građevinski otpad ima veliki potencijal za oporabu i recikliranje kao agregat u betonu. Odgovarajuće upravljanje građevinskim otpadom bi rezultiralo efektivnim i učinkovitim korištenjem prirodnih resursa i smanjenjem utjecaja na okoliš. U ovom radu prikazan je utjecaj na okoliš inovativnog predgotovljenog zidnog panela ECO-SANDWICH® u obliku izjave o utjecaju na okoliš. Prilikom određivanja utjecaja na okoliš uključene su sve utjecajne kategorije definirane u EN 15804, a promatrano kroz cjelokupni uporabni vijek panela, od vađenja materijala, proizvodnje materijala i panela, distribucije, korištenja i razgradnje. Ključne riječi: ž ivotni ciklus, ECO-SANDWICH®, reciklirani beton, reciklirani opeka, fasada ploča, energetska učinkovitost

Environmental product declaration of energy efficient, recycled concrete sandwich facade panel Abstract Construction and demolition waste (CDW) has high potential for re-use and recycling embodied in these materials. Proper management would lead to an effective and efficient use of natural resources and decrease of the environmental impacts. In this paper, the environmental impact of the innovative ECO-SANDWICH® wall panel in the form of its Environmental product declaration. All activities throughout the life cycle of each panel are included in the assessment, from raw material extraction throughout manufacturing, distribution, use of the panels and the disposal at the end of life as defined in EN 15804. Key words: life cycle assessment, ECO-SANDWICH®, recycled concrete, recycled brick, facade panel, energy efficiency

Sabor hrvatskih graditelja 2016

177

1 Introduction Large quantities of natural primary aggregates and building materials are extracted each year due to increasing demands. At a global level, 60 % of the raw materials extracted from the lithosphere are used for civil works and building construction. In Europe, the extraction of minerals for building is about 4.8 tonnes per inhabitant per year, which is 64 times the average footprint per person [1]. Considering the huge building stock in Europe, the construction sector will continue to produce significant quantity of waste from construction, renovation and demolition sites. On the other hand, construction and demolition waste (CDW) contributes to one third of the waste generated in EU, which means about 180 million tonnes per year, approximated at 480 kg per person on average in all EU countries. CDW consists of numerous materials, including concrete, bricks, gypsum, wood, glass, metals, plastic, solvents and excavated soil, many of which can be recycled. Turning CDW into resource is then particularly relevant for Europe. Better construction and use of building and infrastructure in the EU would influence 42 % of final energy consumption, about 35 % of greenhouse emissions and more than 50 % of all extracted materials; it could also help save up to 30 % water. The Waste Framework Directive [2] requires Member States to take any necessary measures to achieve a minimum target of 70 % (by weight) of CDW by 2020 for preparation, for re-use, recycling and other material recovery, including backfilling operations using non-hazardous CDW to substitute other materials. The Portuguese study [3] done on large scale CDW recycling plant shows that the energy and CO2 savings can reach up to 8 times the burdens of the recycling operations provided the generated secondary materials are effectively reused or recycled into new products where they clearly substitute primary materials. On the other hand, energy performance of buildings is also one of the main topics discussed from EC topics since 1970 and has been widely recognized as an option to decrease energy use. According to Energy Performance of Building Directive - EPBD (2002-91 EC) and its Recast EPBD II (2010-31-EU) [4] buildings account over 40 % of total energy consumption in the European Union with the sector expanding and increasing energy consumption. The largest energy saving potential lies in the residential (households) and commercial buildings sector (tertiary sector), where the full potential is now estimated to be around 27 % and 30 % of energy use, respectively [5]. The ECO-SANDWICH® wall system is an innovative prefabricated wall panel with integrated core insulation allowing very low energy design and retrofit of buildings [6-9]. It consists of two precast concrete layers interconnected through stainless steel lattice girders. 50 % of the total aggregate quantity needed for production of concrete layers has been replaced with recycled aggregate obtained from CDW. A newly developed mineral wool manufactured using Ecose technology is used as a thermal insulation material. The ECO-SANDWICH® wall system reduces the effect of thermal bridges to a minimum due to its connection to load bearing structure. A cradle to grave LCA study was performed to assess the environmental impacts of the ECO-SANDWICH® wall panels.

178

GRAĐEVNI MATERIJALI - Sabor hrvatskih graditelja 2016

2 Goal and scope of the study The goals of the study were to determine the environmental impact of the ECOSANDWICH® wall panels and to identify the environmental hotspots in the life cycle. Each panel is 6.2 by 2.8 m and consists of several components (Figure 1): -- Outer concrete layer, using 50 % recycled aggregate -- Mineral wool layer -- Inner concrete layer, using 50 % recycled aggregate -- Reinforcement mesh -- Fixtures -- Transport anchors.

Figure 1. a) ECO-SANDWHICH® wall panel, b) installed wall panels (1st ECO-SANDWICH house in Koprivnica)

According to the standard EN 15804 [10], comparison of the environmental performance of construction products is based on the product’s use in and its impacts on the building, and is considering the whole life cycle. For the product group of insulation materials [11], the functional unit used is the amount of material necessary to achieve 1 m2K/W of thermal resistance. The thermal transmittance (U) of the ECO-SANDWICH® wall panel is U < 0.20 W/m2K. Taken the maximum transmittance, i.e. the worst case scenario, the derived thermal resistance (R, i.e. the reciprocal of the thermal transmittance) is R=5.0 m2K/W. This leads to a reference flow (RF) of RF=0.2 wall panels, as shown in equation (1): (1) The scope of the study is cradle to grave. This means that all activities throughout the life cycle of each panel will be included in the assessment, that is: the product stage, Sabor hrvatskih graditelja 2016 - GRAĐEVNI MATERIJALI

179

installation into the building, use and maintenance, replacements, demolition, waste processing for re-use, recovery, recycling and disposal, and disposal. A simplified flow chart of the life cycle is shown in Figure 2, with the various modules indicated by their respective codes. The ventilation profiles of perforated steel at the bottom of the panels and around windows are out of scope, since these are required for any type of wall (panels). In line with the requirements from EN 15804, allocation for multi-functional products is based on physical properties (e.g. mass, volume) when the difference in revenue from the co-products is low. In all other cases allocation is based on economic values. A list of all inputs and outputs of the system can be found in Table 1.

Figure 2. Simplified flow chart of the life cycle of an ECO-SANDWICH® wall panel (country flags represent the location of the supplier) Table 1. Quantification of inputs and outputs

180

Type

Component

Flow

Unit

Amount

Input Input

Connections Mesh

Input

Concrete layers

Input Input Input Input Output Output Output Output

Mineral wool layer Transport anchors Fixtures Putty -

Stainless steel Steel Demolished concrete Natural aggregate Demolished brick Electricity for inner layer Electricity for outer layer Superplasticizer CEM II Water Electricity for production Mineral wool Steel Galvanized steel Silicon Mineral wool for recycling Concrete for recycling Steel for recycling Waste for recycling

kg kg kg kg kg MJ MJ kg kg l MJ kg kg kg kg % % % -

33.3 137.43 1686.88 2957.76 843.44 232.97 11.83 3.5568 1206.4 509.6 520.28 86.8 7.9 24 3.51 51 46 100 All remaining


The following assumptions were taken into account during the analysis: -- the average country consumption electricity mix is used throughout the lifecycle -- the ECO-SANWICH® wall panel is fixed to buildings with use of galvanized steel fixtures from Germany. In reality, they are produced by company with production sites in both Germany and Poland and the exact production site/mix is unknown. -- painting or maintenance of the panel is not necessary -- the ECO-SANDWICH® wall panel is a new product, so it is not possible yet to use empirical data on the maintenance or life time. The lifetime of the ECO-SANDWICH® wall panel is 50 years -- the concrete, mineral wool and reinforcement steel can be recycled again at endof-life. -- the thermal transmittance (U) of the ECO-SANDWICH® wall panel is U = 0.20 W/ m2K. This is a worst case scenario. -- there is no waste during production, since the amount is expected to be insignificant.

3 Life cycle inventory analysis The product life cycles were modelled using the LCA software SimaPro, developed by PRé Consultants. Generic data was taken from the databases available in SimaPro. The specific data has been collected recently and is therefore not older than 3 years. The generic data that was used is taken from the most recent ecoinvent database, version 3.1, which was released in 2014. Individual datasets from this database differ in how old they are. All used datasets apply with the system boundaries that were set for this study. All inputs and outputs for which data was available were included in the calculation. Data gaps were filled with conservative assumptions with average (generic) data. For end-of-life allocation, the cut-off approach is used, which means that at the end of life, the benefits and burdens of recycling of the ECO-SANDWICH wall panel will not be taken into account. This approach is applied consistently throughout both the foreground and background data.

4 Life cycle impact assessment The environmental impact was calculated using impact categories from CML [1214]. The full list of used impact categories can be seen in Table 2. The environmental impact of an ECO-SANDWICH wall panel is predominantly determined by the product itself (see Figure 3). The total contribution of life cycle stages A1-A3 (i.e. raw materials, transport to production, and assembly) ranges from 48 % for the impact category Abiotic depletion (elements) to 84 % for Global warming. Regarding the total contribution of A4A5 (transport to building site and installing of the wall panel), the lowest contribution is found for Global warming (13 %) and the highest for Abiotic depletion (elements) (51

Sabor hrvatskih graditelja 2016 - GRAĐEVNI MATERIJALI

181

%). The contribution of the waste treatment in the end of life ranges from 0 % for Abiotic depletion (elements) to 7 % for Eutrophication. The life cycle stages B1-7 (i.e. use and operation) do not contribute to the environmental impact, since no processes and/or emissions occur. Table 2. Used impact categories and their origin Impact category

Unit

Method

Global warming

kg CO2 eq.

CML

Ozone depletion

kg CFC

-11

eq.

CML

Acidification

kg SO2 eq.

CML

Eutrophication

kg (PO4) - eq.

CML

Photochemical ozone creation

kg C2H4 eq.

CML

Depletion of abiotic resources: elements

kg Sb eq.

CML

Depletion of abiotic resources: fossil fuels

MJ

CML

3

Figure 3. Graph of characterized results

As can be seen in the results, the main impact for all product categories is module A13, i.e. the product stage, including raw material extraction and processing, transport to the manufacturer and manufacturing. From this impact, it varies which part of the LCI is causing it, as can be seen in Figure 4. For example, for global warming, 43 % of the impact results from the concrete inner layer of the panel, which is a significant contributor for several other impact categories as well. For abiotic depletion of elements, the connections cause 66 % of the impact.

182


Figure 4. Characterized results A1-3

5 Life cycle impact interpretation The main results and a further look into the contributors is shown in the previous chapter. While these results represent the current situation in Croatia, the panels can also be sold outside the country where the recycling rates for construction waste are higher. To investigate the effect of different recycling rates, three scenarios were calculated, see Table 3. Table 3. Recycling scenarios Mineral wool recycling

Concrete recycling

Steel recycling

Landfill

References

Current waste recycling percentages in Croatia

51 %

46 %

100 %

100 % of waste that is not recycled

[15-17]

Current waste recycling percentages, average EU-27

79 %

46 %

100 %


[15-17]

Future waste recycling percentages

100 %

100 %

100 %


Assumption

Scenario

The current scenario uses the recycling rates as used in the normal results. The average EU-27 recycling rates were used to indicate the situation where the panels are sold in other countries. Finally, complete recycling of mineral wool, concrete and steel is calculated to indicate an ideal situation. This is included because it is expected that the waste recycling percentages may change due to the effort of the producers of ECOSANDWICH® and others to recycle construction waste. The results of this scenario analysis show that higher recycling percentages for mineral wool, concrete and steel can have a significant effect on the results, especially when Eutrophication is concerned.


183

All specific data is measured directly at the only production site of the wall panels. As a result, both the technological and geographical representativeness are very good. The measurements took place in the last years and thus the time related representativeness is also good. The generic data was selected based on the best geographical match to the actual situation, which in most cases resulted in an average for either Croatia or Europe. The geographical representativeness therefore varies. In most cases a good technological match was found, though in some cases an average production process, such as ‘average metal working’ had to be used. In those cases the technological representativeness is lower. All generic data was taken from the recently released ecoinvent 3.1 database (2014), though the individual datasets differ in age. The results of the study have the following limitations: the functional unit only covers part of the functionality of the wall panel. Only the thermal insulation is included, while the wall panels are also self-bearing. the used waste scenarios use average data from the current situation. In reality, the wall panels will reach their end-of-life phase several decades from now, when the waste handling is likely to be different. It was illustrated that a different waste scenario can significantly influence the results. generic data is used for the upstream and downstream processes, which means that the actual impact may deviate from the numbers listed here.

Figure 5. Graph of different End-of-life scenarios, comparison of waste recycling percentages

5 Conclusions This paper describes a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the wall panel made of recycled and innovative materials, and used in residential as well as commercial buildings. The LCA was done according to the EN 15804 standard, which provides Product Category Rules for construction products. The goals of the study were to determine the environmental impact of the new ECO-SANDWICH wall panels and to identify the environmental hotspots in the life cycle. The full life cycle is included, from cradle to grave,

184


meaning that the results include the product stage, installation into the building, use and maintenance, replacements, demolition, waste processing for re-use, recovery, recycling, and disposal. All specific data were measured directly at the only production site of the wall panels. As a result, both the technological and geographical representativeness are very good. The measurements took place in the last years and thus the time related representativeness is also good. The generic data was selected based on the best geographical match to the actual situation, which in most cases resulted in an average for either Croatia or Europe. The geographical representativeness therefore varies. In most cases a good technological match was found, though in some cases an average production process, such as ‘average metal working’ had to be used. In those cases the technological representativeness is lower. The results show that the product stage, i.e. raw material extraction and processing, transport to the manufacturer and manufacturing, are a major contribution to the impact for each of the impact categories that were investigated. The results of different scenarios analysis show that higher recycling percentages for mineral wool, concrete and steel can have a significant effect on the results, especially when Eutrophication is concerned.

Acknowledgments This research was performed within research project “ECO-SANDWICH” funded in the frame of CIP ECO Innovation programme (ECO/11/304438/SI2.626301).

Literature [1] Simion, I.M., Fortuna, M.E., Bonoli, A., Gavrilescu, M.: Comparing environmental impacts of natural inert and recycled construction and demolition waste processing using LCA, Journal of environmental engineering and landscape management, 21 (2013) 4, 2013, pp. 273–287. [2] Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, Official Journal of the European Union L312/3, 2008. [3] Coelho, A., De Brito, J.: Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition waste recycling plant in Portugal – Part I: Energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Waste Management, 33 (2013) 5, pp. 1258–1267 [4] Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19th May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (recast), Official Journal of the European Union L153/13-35, 2010. [5] Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the commission, COM(2006)545 final, Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential, 10th of October 2006, Brussels [6] Banjad Pecur, I., Stirmer, N., Milovanovic, B.: Recycled Aggregate Concrete for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings, Magazine of concrete research, 67 (2014) 11, pp, 1-11. [7] Banjad Pecur, I., Stirmer, N., Milovanovic, B.: Durability properties of recycled aggregate concrete, Proceedings of the RILEM International workshop on performance-based specification and control of concrete durability, Zagreb, June 2014, pp. 191-198.


185

[8] Banjad Pecur, I., Stirmer, N., Milovanovic, B.: Innovative prefabricated system with recycled CDW for new and renovation of existing buildings, Proceedings of the 2014 World Congress on Advances in Civil, Environmental and Materials Research, Busan, August 2014, pp. 253-265. [9] Banjad Pecur, I., Stirmer, N., Milovanovic, B., Bijelic, N.: Eco-Sandwich Wall Panel System, the Sustainable Prefabricated Wall Panel System Made of Recycled Aggregates, Conference Proceedings of CIB W115 Green Design Conference, Sarajevo, September 2012, pp. 39-42. [10] EN 15804: Sustainability of construction works – Environmental product declarations – Core rules for the product category of construction products [11] ISO 14025:2006 Product group: multiple UN CPC codes: Insulation materials. Version 1.0. Date 2014-04-16. Valid until: 2017-07-02. [12] Guinée, J.B., Gorrée, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., Koning, A. De Oers, L. Van Wegener Sleeswijk, A., Suh, S., Udo De Haes, H.A., Bruijn, H. De Duin, R., Van Huijbregts, M.A.J.: Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III: Scientific background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 1-4020-0228-9, Dordrecht, pp. 692, 2002. [13] Huijbregts, M.A.J.: LCA normalisation data for the Netherlands (1997/1998), Western Europe (1995) and the World (1990 and 1995). [14] Sleeswijk, A.W., Van Oers, L., Guinee, J.B., Struijs, J., Huijbregts, M.A.J.: Normalisation in product Life Cycle assessment: An LCA of the Global and European Economic Systems in the year 2000, Science of the total environment, 390 (2008) 1, 2008, pp. 227-240. [15] Eurostat 2015 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/setupModifyTableLayout.do?state=new ¤tDimension=DS-052688WASTE (30.04.2015.) [16] Calvo, N., Varela-Candamio, L., Novo-Corti, I.A.: Dynamic Model for Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management in Spain: Driving Policies Based on Economic Incentives and Tax Penalties. Sustainability, 6 (2014), pp. 416-435. [17] Monier, V., Hestin, M., Trarieux, M., Mimid, S., Domröse, L., Van Acoleyen, M., Hjerp, P., Mudgal, S.: Study on the management of Construction and demolition waste in the EU. Contract 07.0307/2009/540863/SER/G2, Final report for the European Commission (DG Environment), 2011.

186


Environmental product declaration of energy efficient, recycled ...

Environmental product declaration of energy efficient, recycled ...

Suggest Documents

Environmental Product Declaration - Innowood

ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCT DECLARATION - Ursa