Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparative life-cycle assessment for renovation methods of waste water sewerage systems for apartment buildings
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Civil and Architectural Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7073-2600
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Journal of Building Engineering, ISSN 2352-7102, Vol. 19, p. 98-108Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This comparative life-cycle assessment highlights three main alternatives for renovation of waste water sewerage: pipe replacement, cured- in- place pipe (CIPP) lining (also called sliplining) and renovation by coatings. The functional unit of this study is a six-story block house that was built in 1960 and has 29 apartments. The characterized results of environmental impacts display an advantage for CIPP-lining over pipe replacement in 14 of the 18 studied impact categories. Regarding those categories in which impacts were comparatively large, when looking at the average impact from a European citizen according to the ReCiPe methodology for life cycle inventory list, pipe replacement has greater impacts than CIPP-lining. In general, the impacts of pipe replacement are related to new tiles, expanded polyester cement, the screed, and the material for waterproofing, as well as the electricity needed for drying the structure. The CIPP-lining method displays higher impacts than pipe replacement in just four categories. These impacts are, to a large extent, caused by the use of consumables such as gloves and cotton cloths. From an LCA-perspective, the study shows that the CIPP and coatings relining methods have advantages over pipe replacement under the condition that the technical lifetime is the same for these methods. Still, the uncertainty of service life, as well as Bisphenol A (BPA) emissions, remain as issues of concern for further study. There are also other differences among the alternatives that ultimately influence a property owner's choice of method, such as costs, inconvenience for the residents, renewal of bathroom interiors, and the way in which the property owner values the alternative technologies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2018. Vol. 19, p. 98-108
Keywords [en]
Cured-in-place pipe, Life-cycle assessment, Relining, Waste water pipeline
National Category
Other Environmental Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-228701DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.04.019Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85046804116OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-228701DiVA, id: diva2:1210800
Funder
Swedish Research Council Formas, 2013-1804
Note

QC 20180529

Available from: 2018-05-29 Created: 2018-05-29 Last updated: 2018-05-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Björk, FolkeMalmqvist, Tove

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Kharazmi, ParastouBjörk, FolkeMalmqvist, Tove
By organisation
Civil and Architectural EngineeringSustainable development, Environmental science and Engineering
Other Environmental Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 6 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf