Advertisement

The Limitations of LCA Methodology Towards Sustainable Construction Materials

  • Saniye Karaman Öztaş
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 6)

Abstract

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an internationally accepted methodology for assessing the environmental impacts caused by the construction materials. The methodology described in the ISO 14040 standard series consists of goal and scope definition, Inventory Analysis (LCI), Impact Assessment (LCIA) and interpretation phases. While LCI is a phase where the inputs and outputs are calculated, LCIA aims at understanding and evaluating the magnitude and significance of the environmental impacts for a product system throughout the life cycle of the product. The LCA of the construction materials is different from other products because of a wide variety of materials, life cycle phases and the long service life. While the lack of environmental data and the implementation period of LCA restrict the use of the methodology; different goal and scopes, different limitations make difficult the comparisons of the studies. In this study, it was aimed to the promotion of the use of LCA. Brick is one of the common construction materials that cause several environmental impacts. Therefore, the recent studies on LCA of brick production were evaluated. The problems in the use of LCA for the construction materials were identified under the sub-headings;
  • The problems encountered in the goal and scope definition

  • The problems encountered in LCI

  • The problems encountered in LCIA

Finally, it was shown which gaps need to be filled for the methodology in the upcoming years. It is thought that LCA should continue to be improved as an analysis methodology which is still in development.

Keywords

Brick Construction materials LCA Limitations Sustainability 

References

  1. 1.
    Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2009) Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr Build Mater 23(1):28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fava JA (2006) Will the next 10 years be as productive in advancing life cycle approaches as the last 15 years? Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lasvaux S, Habert G, Peuportier B, Chevalier J (2015) Comparison of generic and product-specific LCA databases: application to construction materials used in building LCA studies. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1473–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    International Organization of Standardization (ISO) (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework, ISO/TR 14040: 2006(E). Geneva, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cabeza LF, Rincon L, Vilarino V, Perez G, Castell A (2014) LCA and LCEA of buildings and the building sector: a review. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 29:394–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rashid AFA, Yusoff S (2015) A review of LCA method for building industry. Renew Sustain Energ Rev 45:244–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Almeida MI, Dias AC, Demertzi M, Arroja L (2015) Contribution to the development of product category rules for ceramic bricks. J Clean Prod 92:206–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bribian IZ, Capilla AV, Uson AA (2011) Life cycle assessment of construction materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ 46:1133–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koroneos C, Dompros A (2007) Environmental assessment of brick production in Greece. Build Environ 42:2114–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sunil Kumar CP, Parvathi S, Rudramoorthy R (2016) Impact categories through life cycle assessment of coal-fıred brick. Procedia Technol 24:531–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lopez Aguilar HA, Huerta Reynoso EA, Gomez JA (2016) Life cycle assessment of regional brick manufacture. Materiales de Construccion 66(322). ISSN-L: 0465-2746Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Talang RPN, Sirivithayapakorn S (2016) Application of life cycle assessment of fired brick production plant in Thailand. Appl Environ Res 38(3):15–26Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ali AAM, Negm AM (2014) Environmental impacts assessment of the Egyptian brick types using life cycle assessment tool. In: avniR Conference, Life Cycle in Practice, FranceGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christoforou E, Kylili A, Fokaides PA, Ioannou I (2016) Cradle to site life cycle assessment of adobe brick. J Cleaner Prod 112:443–452Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kulkarni NG, Rao AB (2016) Carbon footprint of solid clay bricks fired in clamps of India. J Cleaner Prod 135:1396–1406Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frischknecht R (1998) Life cycle inventory analysis for decision-making. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lotteau M, Loubet P, Pousse M, Dufrasnes E, Sonnemann G (2015) Critical review of LCA for the built environment at the neighborhood scale. Build Environ 93:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ecoinvent (2009) The life cycle inventory data. V. Switzerland, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, SwissGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    International Organization of Standardization (ISO) ISO14025 (2006) Environmental labels and declarations, type III environmental declarations, principles and procedures, ISO 14025:2006(E). Geneva, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kellenberger D, Althaus HJ, Jungbluth N, Künniger T, Lehmann M, Thalmann P (2007) Life cycle inventories of building products, final report ecoinvent data v2.0 no 7. EMPA-Swiss Centre for life cycle inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    UNEP (2015) Brick production. United Nations Environment Program. http://www.unep.org
  22. 22.
    Bilec MM (2007) A hybrid life cycle assessment model for construction process. PhD thesis, School of Engineering, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suh S, Huppes G (2009) Methods in the life cycle inventory of a product. In: Handbook of input-output economics in industrial ecology. Eco-efficiency in industry and science, vol 23. pp 263–282Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment, part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:374–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bare JC (2010) Life cycle impact assessment research developments and needs. Clean Techn Environ Policy 2:341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guinee JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A, Oers L, Wegener SA, Sub S, Udo de Haes HA, Bruijn H, Duin R, Huijbregts M AJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. I: LCA in perspective. II a: guide. II b: operational annex. III: scientific background. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, ISBN 1-4020-0228-9Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pennington DW, Margni M, Amman C, Jolliet O (2005) Multimedia fate and human intake modeling: spatial versus non-spatial insights for chemical emissions in Western Europe. Environ Sci Technol 39(4):1119–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Huijbregts MAJ, Rombouts LJA, Hellweg S, Frischknecht R, Hendriks AJ, van de Meent D, Ragas AMJ, Reijnders L, Struijs J (2005) Is cumulative fossil energy demand a useful indicator for the environmental performance of products? Environ Sci Technol 40(3):641–648Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW et al (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB et al (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge, UK and IPCC, New York. Available on line at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
  30. 30.
    Goedkoop MJ (1995) The eco-indicator 95. Final report (in English). NOH Report 9523, PRe consultants, Amersfoort, NLGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Consultants P (2000) Eco-indicator 99 manual for designers. Ministry of housing, spatial planning and the environment, The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bengoa X, Margni M (2002) IMPACT 2002+: user guide, vol 21Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lijing G, BoRong L, Daojin G, Ying XZ (2008) An endpoint damage oriented model for life cycle environmental impact assessment of buildings in China. Chin Sci Bull 53(23):3762–3769Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huppes G, van Oers L (2011) Background review of existing weighting approaches in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), European Commission, Joint Research Center, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Scientific and Technical Reports, EUR 24997 EN, ISSN 1831-9424.  https://doi.org/10.2788/88828
  35. 35.
    Curran MA, Overly JG, Hofstetter P, Muller R, Lippiatt BC (2002) BEES 2.0, building for environmental and economic sustainability peer review report. NISTIR 6865, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Building Research Establishment (2008) BRE global methodology for environmental profiles of construction products. SD6050Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bengtsson J, Howard N, Kneppers B (2010) Weighting of environmental impacts in Australia. Build Prod Innov Counc Aus IndGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Öztaş Karaman S (2015) A model proposal for life cycle impact assessment for the Turkish building materials sector. PhD thesis, Istanbul Technical Uni., Institute of Science, Architecture Dept., Istanbul, Turkey (Advisor: L. Tanaçan)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    British Standard (BS), European Standard (EN), BS EN15804 (2012) Sustainability of construction works: environmental product declarations, core rules for the product category of construction products. pp 1–49Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArchitectureGebze Technical UniversityKocaeliTurkey

Personalised recommendations