بررسی و تحلیل روشهای ارزیابی اثرات چرخه حیات در بلند مرتبه سازی شهر تهران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه محیط‌زیست، دانشکده منابع طبیعی و محیط زیست، واحد علوم تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ،تهران، ایران.

2 گروه مهندسی محیط‌زیست، دانشکده علوم وفنون دریایی ، واحد تهران شمال، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ،تهران، ایران.

3 گروه معماری و شهرسازی ،دانشکده عمران و معماری و هنر، واحد علوم تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی ،تهران، ایران

چکیده

      امروزه در جهان ارزیابی چرخه حیات به عنوان یکی از کامل ترین روش ها برای ارزیابی زیست محیطی ساختمان ها شناخته شده است. هدف از این تحقیق تمرکز برانتخاب بهترین روش برای ارزیابی چرخه حیات بلند مرتبه سازی با در نظر گرفتن پوشش کامل دسته بندی اثرات زیست محیطی  می با شد . در این مطالعه هفت دسته بندی مهم اثرات زیست محیطی در  هشت روش پرکاربرد ارزیابی چرخه حیات  با استفاده از نرم افزار SPSS مورد تجزیه و تحلیل رگرسیونی قرار گرفتند ودر نهایت روش ReCiPe بعنوان مناسب ترین روش انتخاب شد .سپس این روش برای 16 مصالح مصرفی پر مصرف در یک مدل ساختمانی مسکونی بلند مرتبه در فاز ساخت و ساز در شهر تهران بعنوان مطالعه مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. نتیجه گیری در این تحقیق پس از مقایسه رویکردهای نقطه میانی و پایانی با استفاده از روش  ReCiPe نشان داد نتایج نقطه میانی جامع هستند در حالی که نتایج نقطه پایانی مختصر هستند ولی رویکرد نقطه پایانی اطلاعات بیشتری ازآسیبهای زیست محیطی را ارائه می دهد که باید به عنوان مکمل نقطه میانی استفاده شود. یافته های این تحقیق می تواند به طراحان وسازندگان پروژه قبل از ساخت و ساز پروژه های مسکونی بلند مرتبه با تخمین اثرات زیست محیطی در سطح دو رویکرد در انتخاب مصالح دوستدار محیط زیست کمک کند .لازم بذکر است هرگونه استفاده نادرست از دو رویکرد ذکر شده ممکن است بر نتایج ارزیابی تاثیر گذار و منجر به یافته های گمراه کننده شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigation and analyze the methods of the life cycle assessment for High-Rise Construction in Tehran

نویسندگان [English]

  • taniya jafary 1
  • Seyed Masoud monavari 1
  • Seyed Ali Jozi 2
  • Hamid Majedi 3
1 Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Environment, Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran.
3 Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture and Art, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

     In today's world, life cycle assessment is recognized as one of the complete methods for evaluating buildings' environmental evaluation. This study aimed to select the best way to assess the life cycle of high-rise construction with full coverage of environmental impact classification. In this study, seven important categories of environmental impacts were analyzed in eight widely used life cycle assessment methods using SPSS software, and finally, the ReCiPe method was selected as the most appropriate method. This method has then been studied for 16 high-consumption materials in a high-rise residential construction model in the construction phase in Tehran. Conclusion In this study, after comparing the midpoint and endpoint approaches using the ReCiPe method, the midpoint results are comprehensive while the endpoint results are brief. However, the endpoint approach provides more information on the environmental damage that should be considered to use a midpoint supplement. This study's findings can help project designers and builders before the construction of high-rise residential projects by estimating the environmental impact at the level of two approaches in selecting environmentally friendly materials. It should be noted that any misuse of these two approaches may affect the evaluation results and lead to misleading findings.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • life cycle assessment
  • high-rise construction
  • regression analysis
  • SPSS
  • ReCiPe

مراجع

[1] Q.W. Song, Z. Li, Yaun,W. , Life cycle assessment of desktop PCs in Macau, Int J Life Cycle Assess, 18 (2013) 553–566.
[2] Y.H. Yang, R, On the use of different models for consequential life cycle assessment, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, (23) (2017) 751–758.
[3] UNEP, The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer [Online], in, 2014.
[4] P.J. Monahan J, An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of construction in housing: a case study using a life cycle assessment framework, Energy Build, 43 (2011) 17-88.
[5] ISO, ISO 14040 International Standard. In: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland : International  Organization for Standardization, 2015.
[6] J. Guinee, Life Cycle Assessment: An operational guide to the ISO standards Center of Environmental Science - Leiden University (CML). ,  (2001).
[7] M. Goedkoop, Demmers. The eco-indicator 95, PRé Consultants, (1995).
[8] R.B. Hischier, I, LCA study of a plasma television device, Int J Life Cycle Assess 15 (2010) 428–438.
[9] H.M.A.J. Hauschild M.Z., Introducing Life Cycle Impact Assessment. In: Hauschild M.,   Huijbregts M. (eds) Life Cycle Impact Assessment. LCA Compendium – The Complete World of Life Cycle Assessment. Springer, Dordrecht. ,  (2015).
[10] O.M. Jolliet, M. Charles, R. Humbert, S.Payet, J. Rebitzer,G. & Rosenbaum, R, IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. , The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8 (2003) 324-330.
[11] M.H. Goedkoop, R. Hujbregts, M. Schryer, A. Struijs,J. & Van  ZelmE, R, ReCiPe 2008. A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Report I: Characterization, First Edition.,  (2009).
[12] J.C. Bare, Traci, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 6 (2002) 49678.
[13] A.E.T. Landis, T. L, Comparison of life cycle impact assessment tools in the case of biofuels. IEEE international symposium on electronics and the environment. University Of San Francisco, CA. , 2008.
[14] k. Menoufi, Life cycle analysis and life cycle impact assessment methodologies: a state of the art., 2011.
[15] Q. Song, Wang, Z., Li, J. et al, The life cycle assessment of an e-waste treatment enterprise in China., J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 15 (2013) 469–475.
[16] B. Weidema, Comparing three life cycle impact assessment methods from an endpoint perspective, Journal of Industrial Ecology 19(1) (2014) 20-26.
[17] A.A. Merchan, C. , COMPARISON OF LIFE CYCLE IMPACT Aeessment Methods IN A CASE OF CROP IN NORTHERN FRANCE., in, (2014).
[18] M.Z. Rigon, R. Moraes,C. Modolo,R, Suggestion of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology: Selection Criteria for Environmental Impact Categories. In book: New Frontiers on Life Cycle Assessment - Theory and Application Publisher: IntechOpen, 2019.
[19] M.S. Finkbeiner, E. Lehmann,,A , Traverso, M. , Towards life cycle sustainability assessment, Sustainability, 2 (2010) 3309-3322.
[20] M.C. Pizzol, P. Schmidt, J. & Thomsen, M. , Impacts of metals on human health: a comparison between nine different methodologies for Life Cycle Impact Assessment(LCIA). , Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 (2011) 646-656.
[21] L.C.N. Dreyer, A. L. & Hauschild, M. Z, Comparison of three different LCIA methods: EDIP97, CML2001 and Eco-indicator 99. , The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 8 (2003) 191-200.
[22] H.F. Monteiro, Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: Comparison of three impact assessment methods., Energy and Building 47 (2011) 572583.
[23] S. Renou, Givaudan, J.G., Poulain, S., Dirassouyan, F. and Moulin, P, Landfill leachate treatment: Review and opportunity, Journal of hazardous materials, 150(3) (2008) 468-493.
[24] D.E. Huntzinger, T. , A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies., Journal of Cleaner Production, 17 (2009) 668-675.
[25] A. Hussien, A.  Abdeen, E. Mushtaha, N. Jannat, A. Al-Shammaa , SH. Bin Ali, S. Assi , D. Al-Jumeily, A statistical analysis of life cycle assessment for buildings and buildings’ refurbishment research, j. Ain Shams Engineering., 14(10) (2023) 102143.
[26] F. CX. Chen, Pierobon, S.Jones, I. Maples, Y. Gong, I. Ganguly.  , Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Mass Timber and Concrete Residential Buildings: A Case Study in China., Sustainability., 14(1) (2022) 144.
[27] O.C. Cvalett, M.Seabra , J. Bonomi,A., omparative LCA of ethanol versus gasoline in Brazil using different LCIA methods., The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (2012) 18647–18658.
[28] P. BojarskiL, SzybinskaA,DrabM,Skibinska-KijekA,Gruszczynska-BiegalaJ,etal, Presenilin dependent texpression of STIM protein sandy’s regulation of capacitative Ca2+ entry in familia lAl zheimer’sdisease, BiochimicaetBiophysicaActa, 1793 (2009) 1050–1057.
[29] I.S.K.S.H. C, Life cycle assessment of cubic boron nitride grinding wheels, Journal of Cleaner Production, 107 (2015) 707 - 721.
[30] J.G. Bare, T. , Critical Analysis of the Mathematical Relationships and Comprehensiveness of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Approaches., Environ. Sci. Technol,, 40(4) (2005) 1104-1113.
[31] T. Khoo, singapore Water: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Water Management in 2020 and Beyond, in, 2009.
[32] A.W. Sleeswijk, van Oers, L.F., Guinée, J.B., Struijs, J. and Huijbregts, M.A., 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(1) (2008) 227-240.
[33] S.M.M. T. Jafary Nasab, S.A. Jozi, H.Majedi, Environmental impacts Analysis of High-Rise Construction in Tehran, j. Mater. Environ. Sci, 11(10) (2020) 1642-1657.
[34] S.R. Goedkoop M, van Volkshuisvesting M, en Milieubeheer RO, Communicatie CD, The Eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Ministerie van. Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtleijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, The Netherlands, 1999.
[35] S.M. Itsubo N, Kuriyama K, Inaba A., Statistical analysis for the development of national average weighting factors—visualization of the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts., Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(4) (2012) 488–498.
[36] L.K. Hunkeler D, Rebitzer G, Ciroth A, Europe S. , Environmental life cycle costing. SETAC, New York, in, 2008.
[37] UNEP, Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environmental Programme, Paris, France., in, 2009.
[38] UNEP, Towards a life cycle sustainability assessment—making informed choices on products. United Nations Environmental Programme, Paris., in, 2012.
نشریه مهندسی عمران امیرکبیر
دوره 55، شماره 7
مهر 1402
صفحه 1449-1466

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار