Environmental benefits by using construction methods with geosynthetics

Transcription

1 Chalmers University of Technology 1 Berlin September 24, 2014 Environmental benefits by using construction methods with geosynthetics Prof. Dr.-Ing. Holger Wallbaum Professor in Sustainable building holger.wallbaum@chalmers.se

2 Chalmers University of Technology 2 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

3 Chalmers University of Technology 3 Our «ecological rucksack» Material needed per capita per year the hidden material rucksack the visible material load 50 tons = 100 % erosion earth displacement unconverted materials mineral raw materials fossil fuels biological raw materials others 11 community 6 leisure 13 education 5 health 9 clothing 6 food 20 residence 29 tons per capita

4 Chalmers University of Technology 4 Worldwide importance of the construction industry 30-40% 50% 60% 7% 10% 17% Jobs GDP Fresh water Energy / Raw materials Land CO 2 harvesting

5 Chalmers University of Technology 5 Sustainable development strategies Source: UNEP Resource panel, Findings report: 16, 2012

6 Chalmers University of Technology 6 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 ( ) with Basic Requirement No. 7

7 Chalmers University of Technology 7 Life Cycle Assessment Tool to calculate the environmental impact of products or services Life Cycle Assessment Framework 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 ISO 14040

8 Chalmers University of Technology 8 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)

9 Chalmers University of Technology 9 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?

10 The life cycle of resource extraction and use Chalmers University of Technology 10 Source: UNEP Resource panel, Findings report: 17, 2012

11 Chalmers University of Technology 11 Manifold environmental impacts Input (resources): - crude oil - bauxite - land - Output (emissions): atmosphere - CO 2 - NO X - noise - particulates water - glycol - mineral oil - tributyl tin

12 Chalmers University of Technology 12 Assessing environmental impacts Emission Effect Damages For example: Climate change

13 Chalmers University of Technology 13 Assessing environmental impacts Recipe 2009 (Goedkoop et al.)

14 Chalmers University of Technology 14 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

15 Chalmers University of Technology 15 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)

16 Chalmers University of Technology 16 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

17 Chalmers University of Technology 17 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

18 Chalmers University of Technology 18 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

19 Chalmers University of Technology 19 Environmental impact categories Indicators Considered impacts (substances) Acidification acidfiying substances (NO X, NH 3, SO 2 ) Eutrophication Global Warming Potential Photochemical Oxidation CED non-renewable emissions into water and air (P, N, org Substances) all substances contributing to climate change summer smog (SO 2, CO, Methane, Pentane, Butane, etc) fossil and nuclear energy carriers CED renewable hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass Particulate matter primary and secondary particulates (PM10, NO X, NH 3, SO 2 ) Land competition Water use land occupation total amount of water used, excluding turbined water The calculations are performed with the software SimaPro (PRé Consultants 2012).

20 Chalmers University of Technology 20 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

21 Chalmers University of Technology 21 System boundaries Background processes (energy supply, transports, basic materials) Raw material extraction Geotextile production (EAGM members) Maintenance and Operation Landfill Incineration Energy Material production Building material production Construction Infrastructure element Recycling Disposal Material used in other product System boundary

22 Chalmers University of Technology 22 Input data: Uncertainty analysis: Monte Carlo-Simulation Emissions boiler Fuel supply chain direct NO X -emissions Results: Credits: PSI cumulative NOx-emissions NOx, high pop. [mg/mjheat] Monte-Carlosimulation Max (97.5%) Min (2.5%)

23 Chalmers University of Technology 23 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

24 Chalmers University of Technology 24 Case 1 Filter layer Gravel vs geosynthetic based foundation

25 Chalmers University of Technology 25 Functional unit and system boundaries 1 m 2 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

26 Chalmers University of Technology 26 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)

27 Inventory of filter layer Chalmers University of Technology 27

28 Chalmers University of Technology 28 Inventory of road construction Unit Case 1A Case 1B Total Total Gravel t/m Geosynthetic layer m 2 /m 2-1 Diesel used in building machines MJ/m Transport, lorry tkm/m Transport, freight, rail tkm/m Particulates, > 10 µm g/m Particulates, > 2.5 µm & < 10 µm g/m

29 Chalmers University of Technology 29 Results case 1 per m 2 filter

30 Chalmers University of Technology 30 Results of sensitivity analysis per m 2 filter 1A: standard 1B: standard 1AS1: 40 cm gravel 1AS2: 20 cm gravel

31 Chalmers University of Technology 31 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 m 2 filter layer of 30 cm gravel is saved (standard case) savings of 7 kg CO 2 -eq/km Results are significant and reliable with regard to all environmental indicators

32 Chalmers University of Technology 32 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

33 Chalmers University of Technology 33 Case 2 Road foundation conventional road vs geosynthetic based foundation vs cement/lime based foundation

34 Chalmers University of Technology 34 Functional unit and system boundaries 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

35 Chalmers University of Technology 35 Sensitivity analysis Case 2BS1: replacement of frost-sensitive soil Case 2BS2: no separation geosynthetic Case 2CS1: quicklime only Case 2CS2: cement only

36 Cross sections Chalmers University of Technology 36

37 Chalmers University of Technology 37 Inventory of road foundation Unit Case 2A Case 2B Case 2C Total Thereof foundation stabiliser Total Thereof foundation stabiliser Bitumen t/m Total Thereof foundation stabiliser Gravel t/m Cement t/m Quicklime t/m Geosynthetic separator layer Geosynthetic stabiliser layer Diesel used in building machines m 2 /m m 2 /m MJ/m Transport, lorry tkm/m Transport, freight, rail tkm/m Land use m 2 /m NMVOC kg/m Particulates, > 10 µm Particulates, > 2.5 µm & < 10 µm g/m g/m

38 Chalmers University of Technology 38 Results case 2 per meter road (width 12 meters)

39 Chalmers University of Technology 39 Climate change impact savings Geosynthetics instead of conventional road: 80 t CO 2 -eq/km Geosynthetics instead of cement/quicklime stabilization: 300 t CO 2 -eq/km

40 Chalmers University of Technology 40 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

41 Chalmers University of Technology 41 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

42 Chalmers University of Technology 42 Case 3 Landfill construction gravel based drainage vs geosynthetics based drainage

43 Chalmers University of Technology 43 Functional unit and system boundaries 1 m 2 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

44 Chalmers University of Technology 44 Cross section Focus on drainage layer

45 Chalmers University of Technology 45 Inventory of landfill drainage Unit Case 3A Case 3B Gravel t/m Geosynthetic filter layer Geosynthetic protection layer Geosynthetic drainage core 1 m 2 /m 2 m 2 /m 2 m 2 /m Diesel used in building machines MJ/m Transport, lorry tkm/m Transport, freight, rail tkm/m Land use m 2 /m Particulates, > 10 µm g/m Particulates, > 2.5 µm & < 10 µm g/m The core consists of the drainage layer, geosynthetic filter and protection layer. The latter two are glued on the drainage layer.

46 Chalmers University of Technology % Results case 3 90% per m 2 drainage layer 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% without geosynthetic (3A) with geosynthetic (3B) without geosynthetic (3A) with geosynthetic (3B) without geosynthetic (3A) with geosynthetic (3B) without geosynthetic (3A) with geosynthetic (3B) without geosynthetic (3A) with geosynthetic (3B) without geosynthetic (3A) with geosynthetic (3B) without geosynthetic (3A) with geosynthetic (3B) without geosynthetic (3A) with geosynthetic (3B) without geosynthetic (3A) with geosynthetic (3B) Acidification Eutrophication Global warming 2007 (GWP100) Photochemical oxidation CED nonrenewable CED renewable Particulate matter Land competition Water use Landfill Gravel Geosynthetic Building machine Transport Disposal

47 Chalmers University of Technology 47 Results of sensitivity analysis 100% per m 2 drainage layer 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% without geosynthetic (3A) without geosynthetic (3AS1) with geosynthetic (3B) with geosynthetic (3BS1) without geosynthetic (3A) without geosynthetic (3AS1) with geosynthetic (3B) with geosynthetic (3BS1) without geosynthetic (3A) without geosynthetic (3AS1) with geosynthetic (3B) with geosynthetic (3BS1) without geosynthetic (3A) without geosynthetic (3AS1) with geosynthetic (3B) with geosynthetic (3BS1) without geosynthetic (3A) without geosynthetic (3AS1) with geosynthetic (3B) with geosynthetic (3BS1) without geosynthetic (3A) without geosynthetic (3AS1) with geosynthetic (3B) with geosynthetic (3BS1) without geosynthetic (3A) without geosynthetic (3AS1) with geosynthetic (3B) with geosynthetic (3BS1) without geosynthetic (3A) without geosynthetic (3AS1) with geosynthetic (3B) with geosynthetic (3BS1) without geosynthetic (3A) without geosynthetic (3AS1) with geosynthetic (3B) with geosynthetic (3BS1) 3A: standard 3AS1: Euro 5 lorry 3B: standard 3BS1: Euro 5 lorry Acidification Eutrophication Global warming 2007 (GWP100) Photochemical oxidation CED nonrenewable CED renewable Particulate matter Land competition Water use Landfill Gravel Geosynthetic Building machine Transport Disposal

48 Chalmers University of Technology 48 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 CO 2 - eq for a typical landfill site ( m 2 ) Results are fully reliable for all indicators except land competition

49 Chalmers University of Technology 49 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

50 Chalmers University of Technology 50 Case 4 Slope Retention Reinforced concrete retaining wall vs geosynthetic reinforced with soil

51 Chalmers University of Technology 51 Functional unit and system boundaries 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

52 Chalmers University of Technology 52 Cross section Case 4A Case 4B

53 Chalmers University of Technology 53 Inventory of slope retention Unit Case 4A Case 4B Concrete, sole plate and foundation m 3 /m Lean mix concrete m 3 /m Structural concrete m 3 /m Reinforcing steel kg/m Gravel t/m Bitumen kg/m Three layered laminated board m 3 /m Geosynthetic m 2 /m Polystyrene foam slab kg/m Polyethylene kg/m Diesel in building machine MJ/m Transport, lorry tkm/m Transport, freight, rail tkm/m Land use m 2 /m NMVOC g/m 20 -

54 Chalmers University of Technology % Results case 4 90% per m slope retention 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% without geosynthetic (4A) with geosynthetic (4B) without geosynthetic (4A) with geosynthetic (4B) without geosynthetic (4A) with geosynthetic (4B) without geosynthetic (4A) with geosynthetic (4B) without geosynthetic (4A) with geosynthetic (4B) without geosynthetic (4A) with geosynthetic (4B) without geosynthetic (4A) with geosynthetic (4B) without geosynthetic (4A) with geosynthetic (4B) without geosynthetic (4A) without geosynthetic (4B) Acidification Eutrophication Global warming 2007 (GWP100) Photochemical oxidation 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

55 Chalmers University of Technology 55 Results of sensitivity analysis 100% 90% per m slope retention 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% without geosynthetic (4A) without geosynthetic (4AS1) with geosynthetic (4B) with geosynthetic (4BS1) without geosynthetic (4A) without geosynthetic (4AS1) with geosynthetic (4B) with geosynthetic (4BS1) without geosynthetic (4A) without geosynthetic (4AS1) with geosynthetic (4B) with geosynthetic (4BS1) without geosynthetic (4A) without geosynthetic (4AS1) with geosynthetic (4B) with geosynthetic (4BS1) without geosynthetic (4A) without geosynthetic (4AS1) with geosynthetic (4B) with geosynthetic (4BS1) without geosynthetic (4A) without geosynthetic (4AS1) with geosynthetic (4B) with geosynthetic (4BS1) without geosynthetic (4A) without geosynthetic (4AS1) with geosynthetic (4B) with geosynthetic (4BS1) without geosynthetic (4A) without geosynthetic (4AS1) with geosynthetic (4B) with geosynthetic (4BS1) without geosynthetic (4A) without geosynthetic (4AS1) without geosynthetic (4B) without geosynthetic (4BS1) 4A: standard 4AS1: Euro 5 lorry 4B: standard 4BS1: Euro 5 lorry Acidification Eutrophication Global warming 2007 (GWP100) Photochemical oxidation 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

56 Chalmers University of Technology 56 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 CO 2 - eq/m Results are fully reliable for all indicators

57 Chalmers University of Technology 57 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 & 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

58 Chalmers University of Technology 58 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

59 Chalmers University of Technology 59 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

60 Chalmers University of Technology 60 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

61 Chalmers University of Technology 61 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:

62 Construction Products Regulation Chalmers University of Technology 62 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!

63 6 of the award regulation (VgV), amended in 2003, last amended on : ( 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. Awarding construction contracts in Germany Chalmers University of Technology 63

64 Chalmers University of Technology 64

65 Chalmers University of Technology 65 E39 Kristiansand -Trondheim ca km

66 Chalmers University of Technology 66 Project E39 includes 7 remaining bridges/tunnels

67 Chalmers University of Technology 67 for a sustainable future Core partner on EU s main climate innovation initiative