بررسی تأثیرات زیست¬محیطی خاک کوبیده و آجر رسی پخته شده با استفاده از روش ارزیابی چرخه حیات
محورهای موضوعی : آلودگی هواحامد نوری 1 , مجید صافحیان 2 * , سید مجدالدین میر محمد حسینی 3
1 - دانشجوی دکتری گروه مدیریت ساخت و آب، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
2 - استادیار گروه مدیریت ساخت و آب، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران. *(مسوول مکاتبات)
3 - استاد، دانشکدة مهندسی عمران و محیط زیست، دانشگاه صنعتی امیرکبیر، تهران، ایران.
کلید واژه: خاک کوبیده, ارزیابی چرخه حیات, آجر رسی پخته, انتشار کربن.,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه و هدف: استفاده از انواع مختلف آجر به عنوان مصالح ساخت و ساز برای سالیان زیادی مورد توجه بشر بوده است. استفاده از مصالح خاکی در مقایسه با سایر مصالح صنعتی تاثیرات مخرب زیست محیطی کمتری دارد. هدف کلی این مطالعه مقایسه میزان انتشار کربن و محاسبه انرژی مصرفی در طول چرخه حیات مصالح خاک کوبیده و آجر رسی پخته شده (آجرهای سنتی) و بررسی تاثیرات زیست محیطی مربوطه می باشد. درنهایت سعی شده است با استفاده از نتایج مقایسه کل زنجیره تولید تا دروازه این دو نوع مصالح، پیشنهاد ساخت و ساز با حداقل اثرات مخرب زیست محیطی و در جهت تامین اهداف توسعه پایدار ارائه گردد.
روش بررسی: روش ارزیابی چرخه حیات در این تحقیق مبتنی بر استفاده از ضوابط و توصیه های استاندارد معتبر ایزو 14040 می باشد. مطابق این استاندارد جهت ارزیابی چرخه عمر به بررسی تک تک دروندادها و بروندادهای زیست محیطی در سراسر چرخه حیات محصول یا خدمت از ابتدای تولید تا انتهای عمر بهره برداری توجه ویژه می گردد. محل انجام این پژوهش شهر کاشان می باشد.
یافته ها: بر اساس مطالعه انجام گرفته در شهر کاشان دیده شد که به ازای تولید هر یک تن آجر رسی پخته شده در کل زنجیره چرخه حیات، میزان انرژی مصرفی و انتشار کربن به ترتیب معادل 4804 مگاژول و 1287 کیلوگرم گاز دیاکسیدکربن است. در مقایسه، برای یک تن ازخاک کوبیده شده، فقط 158 مگاژول انرژی مصرفی و تنها 42 کیلوگرم گاز دیاکسیدکربن انتشارمییابد. بدین ترتیب استفاده از خاک کوبیده در مقایسه با آجر رسی موجب کاهش 1245 کیلو گرم بر تن تولید گاز دی اکسید کربن و 4646 مگاژول بر تن انرژی مصرفی، یعنی کاهشی بیش از 95درصد میشود.
بحث و نتیجه گیری: کاربرد خاک کوبیده در مقایسه با آجر رسی میتواند به میزان قابل ملاحظهای درکاهش اثرات منفی زیست محیطی ساخت و ساز اثر گذار باشد. علاوه بر این برای صاحبان و سازندگان مسکن، انرژی مصرفی و انتشار کربن مضر از آجر رسی پخته شده به عنوان مصالح متداول ساخت و ساز را مشخص میکند.
Background and Objective: The use of different types of bricks as construction materials has been considered by humans for many years. The use of earthen materials has low potential environmental impacts than other industrial materials. This study aims to compare carbon emissions (LCCO2) and calculate energy consumption over the life cycle of these materials.
Material and Methodology: In this study, the environmental impacts of using fired clay bricks and rammed earth have been investigated and evaluated using the life cycle assessment method. Rammed earth consists of sand and clay compacted in its optimum moisture.
Findings: According to the study conducted in Kashan, for each ton of fired clay bricks produced in the entire life cycle chain, the embodied energy and carbon emissions are equivalent to 4804 MJ and 1287 Kg of CO2, respectively. In comparison, for one ton of rammed earth, only 158 MJ of energy are consumed and only 42 Kg of CO2 are emitted. Thus, the use of rammed earth in comparison with clay bricks reduces by 1245 kg/ton of CO2 production and 4646 MJ/ton (i.e., more than 95%) of embodied energy.
Discussion and conclusion: The use of rammed earth compared to clay bricks can be significantly effective in reducing the negative environmental impacts of construction. In addition, homeowners and builders identify the embodied energy and harmful carbon emissions from fired clay bricks as common construction materials.
1. Ürge-Vorsatz D, Lucon O, Zain Ahmed A, et al (2014) Buildings. In: Mitigation. Working Group III contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change. 671–738.
2. Joglekar SN, Kharkar RA, Mandavgane SA, Kulkarni BD (2018) Sustainability assessment of brick work for low-cost housing: A comparison between waste based bricks and burnt clay bricks. Sustain Cities Soc 37:396–406.
3. Weißenberger M, Jensch W, Lang W (2014) The convergence of life cycle assessment and nearly zero-energy buildings: The case of Germany. Energy Build 76:551–557.
4. Conejos S, Chew MYL, Yung EHK (2017) The future adaptivity of nineteenth century heritage buildings. Int J Build Pathol Adapt 35:332–347.
5. Sivakumar MVK (2021) Climate change and water productivity. Water Product J 1:1–12.
6. Tinsley J, Pavía S (2019) Thermal performance and fitness of glacial till for rammed earth construction. J Build Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.019.
7. Fernandes J, Peixoto M, Mateus R, Gervásio H (2019) Life cycle analysis of environmental impacts of earthen materials in the Portuguese context: Rammed earth and compressed earth blocks. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118286.
8. Le ATH, Park KS, Domingo N, Rasheed E, Mithraratne N (2018) Sustainable refurbishment for school buildings: a literature review. Int J Build Pathol Adapt. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-01-2018-0009.
9. Khasreen MM, Banfill PFG, Menzies GF (2009) Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: A review. Sustainability 1:674–701.
10. Ahmed IM, Tsavdaridis KD (2018) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost (LCC) studies of lightweight composite flooring systems. J Build Eng 20:624–633.
11. Maknon R (1992) Green technology and sustainable development. Civ Eng Sharif 8:46–50.
12. A. G, Amini M, Habibi M, Godarzonad F (2018) Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from city gas pressure reducing stations. J Envieromental Sci Thenology. https://doi.org/10.22034/jest.2018.15775.2429.
13. Ansari AS (2017) Life Cycle Assessment of Residential Villa. IOSR J Mech Civ Eng 14:50–59
14. Madadi S, Gh. S, A. K (2016) Historical course of global measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the outlook ahead (with emphasis on Iran’s position). J. Envieromental Sci. Thenology .
15. Bahramian M, Yetilmezsoy K (2020) Life cycle assessment of the building industry: An overview of two decades of research (1995–2018). Energy Build 219:109917.
16. Heinonen J, Säynäjoki A, Junnonen JM, Pöyry A, Junnila S (2016) Pre-use phase LCA of a multi-story residential building: Can greenhouse gas emissions be used as a more general environmental performance indicator? Build Environ 95:116–125.
17. Mir Mohammad Hosseini SM (1994) Current patterns of consumption and production of energy and its amendments. Civ Eng Sharif 10:30–37.
18. Raj S. S, Sharma AK, Anand KB (2018) Performance appraisal of coal ash stabilized rammed earth. J Build Eng 18:51–57.
19. Mateus L, Veiga MR, de Brito J, Silva AS (2019) Mineralogical and mechanical characterization of rammed earth external renderings of the south of Portugal. Constr Build Mater 225:1160–1169.
20. Angulo-Ibáñez Q, Mas-Tomás Á, Galvañ-Llopis V, Sántolaria-Montesinos JL (2012) Traditional braces of earth constructions. Constr Build Mater 30:389–399.
21. Serrano S, Rincón L, González B, Navarro A, Bosch M, Cabeza LF (2017) Rammed earth walls in Mediterranean climate: Material characterization and thermal behaviour. Int J Low-Carbon Technol 12:281–288.
22. Walker P, Keable R, Martin J, Maniatidis V (2005) Rammed earth: design and construction guidelines.
23. Nouri H, Safehian M, Mir Mohammad Hosseini SM (2021) Life cycle assessment of earthen materials for low-cost housing a comparison between rammed earth and fired clay bricks. Int J Build Pathol Adapt. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-02-2021-0021.
24. El-Nabouch R, Bui QB, Plé O, Perrotin P (2018) Characterizing the shear parameters of rammed earth material by using a full-scale direct shear box. Constr Build Mater 171:414–420.
25. Bui QB, Morel JC, Hans S, Meunier N (2009) Compression behaviour of non-industrial materials in civil engineering by three scale experiments: The case of rammed earth. Mater Struct Constr 42:1101–1116.
26. Beckett CTS, Cardell-Oliver R, Ciancio D, Huebner C (2018) Measured and simulated thermal behaviour in rammed earth houses in a hot-arid climate. Part A: Structural behaviour. J Build Eng 15:243–251.
27. Loccarini F (2017) Behaviour of rammed earth structures: Sustainable materials and strengthening techniques. 1–151.
28. Maniatidis V, Walker P (2003) A review of rammed earth construction. Dev rammed earth UK Hous 109.
29. Kariyawasam KKGKD, Jayasinghe C (2016) Cement stabilized rammed earth as a sustainable construction material. Constr Build Mater 105:519–527.
30. Abhilash HN, Walker P, Venkatarama Reddy B V., Heath A, Maskell D (2020) Compressive Strength of Novel Alkali-Activated Stabilized Earth Materials Incorporating Solid Wastes. J Mater Civ Eng 32:04020118.
31. Hussaini SMS, Toufigh V (2019) Strength and Fracture Behavior of Rammed-Earth Materials. J Mater Civ Eng 31:04019228.
32. Medvey B, Dobszay G (2020) Durability of Stabilized Earthen Constructions: A Review. Geotech Geol Eng 38:2403–2425.
33. Bui TT, Bui QB, Limam A, Maximilien S (2014) Failure of rammed earth walls: From observations to quantifications. Constr Build Mater 51:295–302.
34. Arrigoni A, Grillet AC, Pelosato R, Dotelli G, Beckett CTS, Woloszyn M, Ciancio D (2017) Reduction of rammed earth’s hygroscopic performance under stabilisation: an experimental investigation. Build Environ 115:358–367.
35. Jayasinghe C, Fonseka WMCDJ, Abeygunawardhene YM (2016) Load bearing properties of composite masonry constructed with recycled building demolition waste and cement stabilized rammed earth. Constr Build Mater 102:471–477.
36. Al-Kheetan MJ, Rahman MM, Chamberlain DA (2018) Remediation and protection of masonry structures with crystallising moisture blocking treatment. Int J Build Pathol Adapt 36:77–92.
37. Illampas R, Ioannou I, Charmpis DC (2014) Adobe bricks under compression: Experimental investigation and derivation of stress-strain equation. Constr Build Mater 53:83–90.
38. Dabaieh M, Heinonen J, El-Mahdy D, Hassan DM (2020) A comparative study of life cycle carbon emissions and embodied energy between sun-dried bricks and fired clay bricks. J Clean Prod 275:122998.
39. Le HA, Oanh NTK (2010) Integrated assessment of brick kiln emission impacts on air quality. Environ Monit Assess 171:381–394.
40. Bories C, Vedrenne E, Paulhe-Massol A, Vilarem G, Sablayrolles C (2016) Development of porous fired clay bricks with bio-based additives: Study of the environmental impacts by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Constr Build Mater 125:1142–1151.
41. Minke G (2000) Earth construction handbook: the building material earth in modern architecture.
42. De Lassio J, França J, Espirito Santo K, Haddad A (2016) Case study: LCA methodology applied to materials management in a Brazilian residential construction site. J Eng (United Kingdom). https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8513293
43. Arrigoni A, Beckett C, Ciancio D, Dotelli G (2017) Life cycle analysis of environmental impact vs. durability of stabilised rammed earth. Constr Build Mater 142:128–136.
44. Sameh SH (2014) Promoting earth architecture as a sustainable construction technique in Egypt. J Clean Prod 65:362–373.
45. Marcelino-Sadaba S, Kinuthia J, Oti J, Seco Meneses A (2017) Challenges in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of stabilised clay-based construction materials. Appl Clay Sci 144:121–130.
46. Oquendo-Di Cosola V, Olivieri F, Ruiz-García L, Bacenetti J (2020) An environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Living Wall Systems. J Environ Manage 254:109743.
47. Kylili A, Fokaides PA (2016) Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Phase Change Materials (PCMs) for building applications: A review. J Build Eng 6:133–143.
48. Christoforou E, Kylili A, Fokaides PA, Ioannou I (2016) Cradle to site Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of adobe bricks. J Clean Prod 112:443–452
49. Morau D, Rabarison T, Rakotondramiarana H (2017) Life Cycle Analysis of Green Roof Implemented in a Global South Low-income Country. Br J Environ Clim Chang 7:43–55.
50. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework (ISO 14040:2006). Environ. Manag. Syst. Requir. 44:
51. Zhang X, Liu K, Zhang Z (2020) Life cycle carbon emissions of two residential buildings in China: Comparison and uncertainty analysis of different assessment methods. J Clean Prod 266:122037.
52. Bilec M, Ries R, Matthews HS, Sharrard AL (2006) Example of a Hybrid Life-Cycle Assessment of Construction Processes. J Infrastruct Syst 12:207–215.
53. Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran (2006) Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework.
54. Shamsipour A, Zawar-Reza P, Alavi Panah SK, Azizi G (2011) Analysis of drought events for the semi-arid central plains of Iran with satellite and meteorological based indicators. Int J Remote Sens 32:9559–9569.
55. BSI (2011) PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution, London. 1–45.
56. Hammond GP, Jones CI (2008) Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proc Inst Civ Eng Energy 161:87–98.
57. Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran (2011) Building bricks- Criteria for Energy consumption in production processes.
58. Hammond G, Jones C (2011) A BSRIA Guide. Embodied Carbon: The Inventory of Carbon and Energy. Ice 136.