Berlin September 24, 2014 Environmental benefits by … University of Technology 1 Environmental...

Chalmers University of Technology 1

Environmental benefits by using construction methods with geosynthetics Prof. Dr.-Ing. Holger Wallbaum Professor in Sustainable building [email protected]

Berlin September 24, 2014


Content

• Introduction to Life Cycle Assessment • Goal & Scope • Case 1: Filter layer • Case 2: Road Foundation • Case 3: Landfill Construction • Case 4: Slope Retention • Overall conclusions and outlook


Material needed per capita per year 50 tons =

0 2 2 4 4 6 6 8 10 tons per capita

100 % mineral raw materials

fossil fuels

residence

food

clothing

health

education

leisure

community

others

6

11

13

5

9

6

20

29

biological raw materials

the visible material load the hidden material “rucksack”

unconverted materials

earth displacement

erosion

Our «ecological rucksack»


GDP Jobs Energy / CO2

Raw materials Land harvesting

7% 10%

50%

30-40%

60%

Worldwide importance of the construction industry

Fresh water

17%


Sustainable development strategies

Source: UNEP Resource panel, Findings report: 16, 2012


European Developments • Waste Framework Directive (2008) • Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (2010) • Thematic Strategy for Urban Environment (2006) • Flagship Initiative „Resource Saving Europe“ (2011) • Roadmap for a „Resource Saving Europe“ (2011) • Lead Market Initiative „Sustainable Construction“ (2007) • Action Plan „Sustainable Construction“ • CEN/TC 350 Sustainability of Construction Works • Construction Products Regulation (2011 ... 2013) with Basic Requirement

No. 7


Life Cycle Assessment Tool to calculate the environmental impact of products or services

ISO 14040

Goal and Scope

Definition

Inventory analysis

Impact assessment

Interpretation

Direct applications: •Product development and improvement •Strategic planning •Public policy making •Marketing •Benchmarking •Ecolabels and product declarations

Life Cycle Assessment Framework


Reasons for carrying out a LCA

• Explore and learn about the life cycle • Support product development and strategic planning • Marketing This can be done by • Comparison of two (or more) products, processes or

services • Improvement of one product (hot spot analysis)


Purpose for carrying out a LCA

• Improvement possibilities? • Activities with largest contribution? • Environmental consequences of changes? • Environmental consequences of using

secondary recycled raw material? • Environmentally preferable choice of products

used in a specific application?


The life cycle of resource extraction and use

Source: UNEP Resource panel, Findings report: 17, 2012


Input (resources): - crude oil - bauxite - land - …

Output (emissions): atmosphere - CO2 - NOX - noise - particulates water - glycol - mineral oil - tributyl tin

Manifold environmental impacts


Assessing environmental impacts Emission Effect Damages

For example: Climate change


Assessing environmental impacts

Recipe 2009 (Goedkoop et al.)


Content



Goal and Scope of the Study

The goal definition shall unambiguously state the intended application, the reason for carrying out the study and the intended

audience (ISO 14040)


Goal of the study Environmental assessment of commonly applied construction versus

geosynthetic materials

Description Alternatives Case Filter layer gravel based filter 1A geosynthetics based filter 1B Road foundation conventional road (no stabilisation needed) 2A geosynthetics based foundation 2B cement/lime based foundation 2C Landfill construction gravel based drainage layer 3A geosynthetics based drainage layer 3B Slope retention reinforced concrete wall 4A geosynthetics reinforced wall 4B


Goal of the project

• assess the environmental performance of geosynthetics and competing building materials

to be able to:

• continuously improve the performance of geosynthetics production

• formulate requirements on suppliers

• communicate environmental information to customers, clients and stakeholders


Scope of the project: four cases

• Filter layer: Application of geosynthetics vs. classical filter material

• Road foundation: conventional road vs. geosynthetics vs. cement/lime stabilisation

• Landfill construction: Application of drainage gravel vs. drainage mat

• Slope retention: Reinforced concrete retaining wall vs. geosynthetics reinforced with soil


Environmental impact categories

Indicators Considered impacts (substances)Acidification acidfiying substances (NOX, NH3, SO2)

Eutrophication emissions into water and air (P, N, org Substances)Global Warming Potential all substances contributing to climate changePhotochemical Oxidation summer smog (SO2, CO, Methane, Pentane, Butane, etc)

CED non-renewable fossil and nuclear energy carriersCED renewable hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, biomassParticulate matter primary and secondary particulates (PM10, NOX, NH3, SO2)

Land competition land occupationWater use total amount of water used, excluding turbined water

The calculations are performed with the software SimaPro (PRé Consultants 2012).


Data collection

• Questionnaires completed by EAGM member companies with information about: - production volumes and size of site(s) - energy and water consumption, - raw material consumption (feedstock), - working material consumption - process related emissions to air and water - wastes generated


System boundaries

Raw material extraction

Building material production

Background processes (energy supply, transports, basic materials)

Construction

Landfill

Material production Infrastructure element Disposal

Maintenanceand Operation

Recycling

Incineration Energy

Material used in other product

System boundary

Geotextile production(EAGM members)

Raw material extraction

Building material production

Background processes (energy supply, transports, basic materials)

Construction

Landfill

Material production Infrastructure element Disposal

Maintenanceand Operation

Recycling

Incineration Energy

Material used in other product

System boundary

Geotextile production(EAGM members)


Uncertainty analysis: Monte Carlo-Simulation

Input data:

Results:

Max (97.5%)

Min (2.5%) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NO

x, h

igh

pop.

[mg/

MJ h

eat]

Emissions boiler Fuel supply chain

cumulative NOx-emissions

Monte-Carlo- simulation

Credits: PSI

direct NOX-emissions


Content



Case 1

Filter layer

Gravel vs geosynthetic based foundation


Functional unit and system boundaries

• 1 m2 filter with hydraulic conductivity (k-value) of 0.1 mm/s or more, 30 years life time

• manufacture and disposal of - 30 cm gravel layer - geosynthetic layer

• Sensitivity analysis - Specification: 20 cm gravel - Specification: 40 cm gravel


Data sources • Filter specification: EAGM • Geosynthetics: EAGM members • Building machines: Swiss statistical fuel consumption, Frischknecht 2004,

Breiter 1983 • Background data: ecoinvent data v2.2

(internationally reknown life cycle inventory database)


Inventory of filter layer


Inventory of road construction Unit Case 1A Case 1B Total Total Gravel t/m2 0.69 - Geosynthetic layer m2/m2 - 1 Diesel used in building machines MJ/m2 2.04 1.04 Transport, lorry tkm/m2 34.5 0.035 Transport, freight, rail tkm/m2 - 0.07 Particulates, > 10 µm g/m2 4.8 0 Particulates, > 2.5 µm & < 10 µm g/m2 1.3 0


Results case 1

per

m2

filt

er


Results of sensitivity analysis

1A: standard 1B: standard 1AS1: 40 cm gravel 1AS2: 20 cm gravel

per

m2

filt

er


Conclusions case 1 • Low share of geosynthetic material

• The use of geosynthetics leads to lower environmental impacts

• Geosynthetic replaces unprocessed material (gravel) → at least a layer of 4.5 cm gravel needs to be saved that the application of geosynthetics leads to lower impacts

• If 1 m2 filter layer of 30 cm gravel is saved (standard case) → savings of 7 kg CO2-eq/km

• Results are significant and reliable with regard to all environmental indicators


Content



Case 2

Road foundation

conventional road vs geosynthetic based foundation vs

cement/lime based foundation



• 1 m road class III on stabilised foundation with 12 m width, 30 years life time

• manufacture and disposal of - surface layer - binder course - foundation

• operation of the road (lighting etc.) and traffic excluded • additional focus on stabilisation layer


Sensitivity analysis

• Case 2BS1: replacement of frost-sensitive soil • Case 2BS2: no separation geosynthetic • Case 2CS1: quicklime only • Case 2CS2: cement only


Cross sections


Inventory of road foundation Unit Case 2A Case 2B Case 2C

Total Thereof

foundation stabiliser

Total Thereof


Total Thereof


Bitumen t/m 0.3 - 0.3 - 0.3 Gravel t/m 33.9 - 24.3 - 18.7 6.9 Cement t/m - - - - 0.16 0.16 Quicklime t/m - - - - 0.26 0.26 Geosynthetic separator layer Geosynthetic stabiliser layer

m2/m m2/m

- -

- -

12 12

12 12

- -

- -

Diesel used in building machines MJ/m 1957 - 1972 - 1969 14.9

Transport, lorry tkm/m 1711 - 1232 - 994 41.4 Transport, freight, rail tkm/m - - 2.0 2.0 41.4 41.4

Land use m2/m 12 12 12 12 12 12 NMVOC kg/m 2.19 - 2.19 - 2.19 - Particulates, > 10 µm

g/m 237 - 170 - 131 -

Particulates, > 2.5 µm & < 10 µm

g/m 63 - 45 - 35 -


Results case 2

per

met

er r

oad

(wid

th 1

2 m

eter

s)


Climate change impact savings • Geosynthetics instead of conventional road:

80 t CO2-eq/km

• Geosynthetics instead of cement/quicklime stabilization: 300 t CO2-eq/km


Conclusions case 2 • Lower environmental impacts of geosynthetics road foundation

compared to a conventional road

• Mixed results of geosynthetics road foundation compared to cement/lime road foundation → trade off

• Lower impacts of geosynthetics road foundation: climate change, summer smog, renewable energy

• Similar impacts: acidification, particulate matter, non renewable energy

• Higher impacts of geosynthetics road foundation: eutrophication, land competition, water use → at least factor 2 lower environmental impacts of geosynthetics option compared to classical (cement stabilised) option


Content



Case 3

Landfill construction

gravel based drainage vs geosynthetics based drainage



• 1 m2 surface area of landfill drainage layer • manufacture and disposal of

- filter geosynthetic layer - filter layer (gravel and geosynthetic, respect.) - protection geosynthetic layer

• operation of the landfill excluded • Sensitivity analysis: Euro 5 instead of average lorry


Cross section

Focus on drainage layer


Inventory of landfill drainage Unit Case 3A Case 3B Gravel t/m2 0.90 - Geosynthetic filter layer Geosynthetic protection layer Geosynthetic drainage core1

m2/m2

m2/m2

m2/m2

1 1 -

- - 1

Diesel used in building machines MJ/m2 4.5 3.8 Transport, lorry tkm/m2 45.1 0.2 Transport, freight, rail tkm/m2 0.1 0.3 Land use m2/m2 1 1 Particulates, > 10 µm g/m 6.3 - Particulates, > 2.5 µm & < 10 µm g/m 1.7 - 1The core consists of the drainage layer, geosynthetic filter and protection layer. The latter two are glued on the drainage layer.


Results case 3 pe

r m

2 dr

aina

ge la

yer

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%w

ithou

t geo

synt

hetic

(3A

)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

)

Acidification Eutrophication Global warming2007 (GWP100)

Photochemicaloxidation

CED non-renewable

CED renewable Particulatematter

Land competition Water use

Landfill Gravel Geosynthetic Building machine Transport Disposal



3A: standard 3AS1: Euro 5 lorry 3B: standard 3BS1: Euro 5 lorry

per

m2

drai

nage

laye

r

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

AS

1)w

ith g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

B)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

AS

1)w

ith g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

B)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

AS

1)w

ith g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

B)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

AS

1)w

ith g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

B)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

AS

1)w

ith g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

B)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

AS

1)w

ith g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

B)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

AS

1)w

ith g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

B)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

AS

1)w

ith g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

B)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

AS

1)w

ith g

eosy

nthe

tic (3

B)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(3B

S1)



CED non-renewable

CED renewable Particulatematter

Land competition Water use

Landfill Gravel Geosynthetic Building machine Transport Disposal


Conclusions case 3

• The use of geosynthetics leads to lower environmental impacts concerning all indicators investigated, except land competition

• If geosynthetics are applied → savings of 220 t CO2-eq for a typical landfill site (30‘000 m2)

• Results are fully reliable for all indicators except land competition


Content



Case 4

Slope Retention

Reinforced concrete retaining wall vs geosynthetic reinforced with soil



• 1 m of a 3 m high slope retention • manufacture and disposal of supporting structure • operation of the slope retention excluded • Sensitivity analysis: Euro 5 instead of average lorry


Cross section

Case 4A Case 4B


Inventory of slope retention Unit Case 4A Case 4B Concrete, sole plate and foundation m3/m 1.60 - Lean mix concrete m3/m 0.24 - Structural concrete m3/m 2.10 0.31 Reinforcing steel kg/m 153 - Gravel t/m 4.3 4.3 Bitumen kg/m 2.84 - Three layered laminated board m3/m 0.01 - Geosynthetic m2/m - 39.2 Polystyrene foam slab kg/m 0.25 - Polyethylene kg/m 1.74 2.02 Diesel in building machine MJ/m 11.6 53.9 Transport, lorry tkm/m 701 265 Transport, freight, rail tkm/m 33.2 6.9 Land use m2/m 1.0 0.6 NMVOC g/m 20 -


Results case 4 pe

r m

slo

pe r

eten

tion

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic(4

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic(4

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic(4

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic(4

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic(4

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic(4

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic(4

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic(4

A)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic(4

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic(4

B)



CED non-renewable CED renewable Particulate matter Land competition Water use

Slope retention Concrete Gravel Geosynthetic Reinforcing steel Bitumen Wooden board Plastic Building machine Transport Disposal



4A: standard 4AS1: Euro 5 lorry 4B: standard 4BS1: Euro 5 lorry

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

AS

1)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

AS

1)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

AS

1)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

AS

1)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

AS

1)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

AS

1)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

AS

1)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

AS

1)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

)

with

geo

synt

hetic

(4B

S1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

A)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

AS

1)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

B)

with

out g

eosy

nthe

tic (4

BS

1)



CED non-renewable CED renewable Particulate matter Land competition Water use

Slope retention Concrete Gravel Geosynthetic Reinforcing steel Bitumen Wooden board Plastic Building machine Transport Disposal

per

m s

lope

ret

enti

on


Conclusions case 4

• Relatively high share of geosynthetics in the total environmental impacts of the system

• The use of geosynthetics leads to lower environmental impacts concerning all indicators investigated

• If geosynthetics are applied → savings of 1 t CO2-eq/m

• Results are fully reliable for all indicators


Critical Review • Panel of three external, independent Experts:

- Hans-Jürgen Garvens (Chair), Germany - Maartje Sevenster, Isaacs, Australia - Lars-Gunnar Lindfors, IVL, Stockholm, Sweden

RESULTS • Study performed in full accordance with ISO 14040 & 14044 • Using geosynthetics can have advantages but is not always

preferable • Study gives a sufficient information base to decide on the

system to use with regard to environmental issues • Comprehensive and broad view on sample construction

systems using geosynthetics


Content



Conclusions Geosynthetics

• Highest share on impacts caused by raw materials (mainly plastic) • National electricity mixes influence the results • Rather small influence of infrastructure, disposal, working materials,

transports and thermal energy consumption


Overall conclusions • Geosynthetic layers cause lower climate change impacts in all cases

considered

• The use of geosynthetic layers may also lead to lower other environmental impacts except in case 2

• Case 2: - trade off between climate change and eutrophication (among others) - cement stabilised foundation with lower non renewable energy demand

• The variation in environmental impacts of geosynthetics manufacture does not affect the overall results

• Despite the necessary simplifications and assumptions, the results of the comparison are considered to be significant and reliable

• Establish key parameter models to model case studies


Background report “Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Geosynthetics versus Conventional Construction Materials” on behalf of the and further conference and journal paper is available on:

http://www.eagm.eu/lca-study/





Construction Products Regulation

New Basic Requirement No. 7: „Sustainable Use of Natural Resources“ The construction works must be designed, built and demolished in such a way that the use of natural resources is sustainable and ensures the following:

a. recyclability of the construction works, their materials and parts after demolition

b. durability of the construction works c. use of environmentally compatible raw and secondary material in the d. construction

➝ all product standards have to be revised!


Awarding construction contracts in Germany

§6 of the award regulation (VgV), amended in 2003, last amended on 12.7.12: ( 3) The terms of reference should be made with regard to energy efficiency, especially following requirements :

1 the highest level of performance and energy efficiency 2 where available, the highest energy efficiency class in terms of energy consumption labelling.

( 4) The terms of reference or at another suitable location in the tender documents are to call for the following information from the bidders :

1 concrete information on energy consumption, unless the goods offered on the market, technical devices or equipment differ in the allowable energy consumption only slightly, and 2 in appropriate cases, 1 a) a minimized life cycle cost analysis or 2 b ) the results of a point a comparable method for checking the efficiency.

(5) The authority referred to in paragraph 4 may check submitted information and to request further additional explanations of the bidders. (6 ) In determining the most economical offer according to § 97 paragraph 5 of the Act against Restraints of Competition is to consider the basis of the information referred to in paragraph 4 or the results of a review under paragraph 5 to be determined appropriate energy efficiency as an award criterion.


E39 Kristiansand -Trondheim ca. 1100 km


Project E39 includes 7 remaining bridges/tunnels


for a sustainable future

Core partner on EU’s main climate innovation initiative

Berlin September 24, 2014 Environmental benefits by … University of Technology 1 Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of Berlin September 24, 2014 Environmental benefits by … University of Technology 1 Environmental...