The Embodied Life Cycle Global Warming Potential of Off-Site Prefabricated Concrete Products: Precast Concrete and Concrete Pile Production in Korea
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Life Cycle Process Definition and Data Collection
2.2. Life Cycle GWP Assessment
2.3. Verification and Comparative Analysis of Embodied GWPs
3. Results
3.1. Life Cycle GWP Results and Impact Analysis
3.2. Verification of Embodied Life Cycle GWPs
3.3. Comparative Analysis of GWPs
3.4. Short Discussion on the Global Warming Impact of the Korean Concrete Industry
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- The life cycle embodied GWPs were found to be 1.87 × 10−1 kg CO2 eq/kg for PHC piles and 1.77 × 10−1 kg CO2 eq/kg for PC;
- The GWP contribution rates of off-site manufacturing processes for PHC piles and PC were only 5.28% and 2.89%, respectively, among the whole life cycle GWPs, while the GWP contribution rates of cement input solely were 71.53% for PHC piles and 63.63% for PC. The results imply that the off-site prefabrication process affects low GWPs compared to the whole life cycle of prefabrication products and signifies the importance of reducing the embodied carbon of the inputs rather than the prefabrication processes to produce a low-carbon product;
- According to the analysis of the EPD data of prefabricated products, the accurate GWP range of overall prefabricated products was from 0.1675 kg CO2 eq/kg to 0.2255 kg CO2 eq/kg, that of PC was from 0.1355 kg CO2 eq/kg to 0.2255 kg CO2 eq/kg, and that of concrete piles was from 0.1851 kg CO2 eq/kg to 0.2338 kg CO2 eq/kg. Since the assessed GWPs of this study were within the ranges, it was found that the assessed embodied GWPs of both PC and PHC piles are appropriate to use in other environmental evaluations related to off-site construction;
- The embodied GWP of ordinary RC used for concrete structure LCA in Korea was found to be approximately 58% of that of PHC piles and 67% of that of PC. This implies that the life cycle GWPs of concrete structures may be significantly underestimated when the quantities of PC and PHC piles are assumed to be conventional RC;
- In addition, the impact of the production of PHC piles and PC on global warming in Korea was found to be approximately 4% of that of RMC. This indicates that it is necessary to consider the impacts of the PHC piles and PC industries as well as those of the RMC industry when assessing the impacts of global warming on the concrete industry at the national level.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
EPD | environmental product declaration |
GHG | greenhouse gases |
GWP | global warming potential |
G-SEED | Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design |
LCA | life cycle assessment |
LCI DB | life cycle inventory database |
LEED | Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design |
PC | precast concrete |
PHC | pretensioned spun high-strength concrete |
RC | reinforced concrete |
RMC | ready mixed concrete |
References
- IPCC. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Preindustrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission: The European Green Deal; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- International Energy Agency (IEA). An Energy Sector Road Map to Carbon Neutrality in China; IEA: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- US Department of State. The Long-Term Strategy of the United States: Pathways to Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
- Government of the Republic of Korea. 2050 Carbon Neutral Strategy of the Republic of Korea: Towards a Sustainable and Green Society; Government of the Republic of Korea: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2020.
- Kaur, H.; Garg, P. Urban sustainability assessment tools: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz-López, C.; Carpio, M.; Martín-Morales, M.; Zamorano, M. Analysis of the scientific evolution of sustainable building assessment methods. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 49, 101610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awadh, O. Sustainability and green building rating systems: LEED, BREEAM, GSAS and Estidama critical analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2017, 11, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez-Pulido, C.; Jiménez-Rivero, A.; García-Navarro, J. Improved sustainability certification systems to respond to building renovation challenges based on a literature review. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 45, 103575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.; Park, W. A study of the energy efficiency management in Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design (G-SEED)-certified apartments in South Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, K.H.; Chae, C.; Cho, D. Development of an assessment method for energy performance of residential buildings using G-SEED in South Korea. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2022, 21, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- KICT. Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design; G-SEED. 6 (2016) v1. Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology (KICT): Goyang, Republic of Korea, 2021. Available online: http://gseed.or.kr (accessed on 1 June 2022).
- ISO-14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- ISO-14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- Petrovic, B.; Myhren, J.A.; Zhang, X.; Wallhagen, M.; Eriksson, O. Life cycle assessment of building materials for a single-family house in Sweden. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 3547–3552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, S.; Chae, C. A study on life cycle CO2 emissions of low-carbon building in South Korea. Sustainability 2016, 8, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rinne, R.; Ilgın, H.E.; Karjalainen, M. Comparative study on life-cycle assessment and carbon footprint of hybrid, concrete and timber apartment buildings in Finland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryberg, M.W.; Ohms, P.K.; Møller, E.; Lading, T. Comparative life cycle assessment of four buildings in Greenland. Build. Environ. 2021, 204, 108130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellis, L.D.; Badel, A.F.; Chiang, M.L.; Park, R.J.; Chiang, Y.M. Toward electrochemical synthesis of cement—An electrolyzer-based process for decarbonating CaCO3 while producing useful gas streams. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 12584–12591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Penadés-Plà, V.; Martí, J.V.; García-Segura, T.; Yepes, V. Life-cycle assessment: A comparison between two optimal posttensioned concrete box-girder road bridges. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Muñoz, D.; Martí, J.V.; Yepes, V. Comparative life cycle analysis of concrete and composite bridges varying steel recycling ratio. Materials 2021, 14, 4218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, K.J.; Yun, W.G.; Cho, N.; Ha, J. Life cycle assessment based environmental impact estimation model for pre-stressed concrete beam bridge in the early design phase. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 64, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, W.-J.; Kim, R.; Roh, S.; Ban, H. Analysis of major environmental impact categories of road construction materials. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Hu, H.; Gong, J.; Ma, X.; Xiong, W. Precast supply chain management in off-site construction: A critical literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 1204–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haar, B.T.; Kruger, J.; Zijl, G. Off-site construction with 3D concrete printing. Autom. Constr. 2023, 152, 104906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayawardana, J.; Sandanayake, M.; Jayasinghe, J.A.S.C.; Kulatunga, A.K.; Zhang, G. A comparative life cycle assessment of prefabricated and traditional construction—A case of a developing country. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 72, 106550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, D.; Sharples, S.; Mohammadpourkarbasi, H.; Khan-Fitzgerald, R. Carbon Analysis, Life cycle assessment, and Prefabrication: A Case Study of a High-Rise Residential Built-toRent Development in the UK. Energies 2023, 16, 973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, Y.; Li, K.; Pan, W.; Ng, T. Reducing building life cycle carbon emissions through prefabrication: Evidence from and gaps in empirical studies. Build. Environ. 2018, 132, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S.; Thomas, C.M. Environmental emissions of construction equipment usage in pile foundation construction process—A case study. In Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.-J.; Zheng, Y.-D. Using LCA to research carbon footprint for precast concrete piles during the building construction stage: A China study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyu, F.; Shao, H.; Zhang, W. Comparative analysis about carbon emission of precast pile and cast-in-situ pile. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 514–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S. Environmental emissions at foundation construction stage of buildings: Two case studies. Build. Environ. 2016, 95, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, W.; Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G. Direct and indirect carbon emissions in foundation construction-Two case studies of driven precast and cast-in-situ piles. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1517–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of the Environment (ME). Environmental Product Declaration Guideline, 2021. Maine, Republic of Korea: Annex 2 Transport Distance. 2021. (In Korean). Available online: https://www.law.go.kr/LSW/admRulInfoP.do?admRulSeq=2100000199570#AJAX (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- EPDDANMARK. EPD Database—Precast Lightweight Concrete Wall Elements. 2021. (In Danish). Available online: https://www.epddanmark.dk/media/oq0dzm1j/md-20015-da_rev1-betonelement-foreningen.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- EPDDANMARK. EPD Database—Precast Reinforced Concrete Piles. 2021. (In Danish). Available online: https://www.epddanmark.dk/media/g05hrtkm/md-21004-da_centrum-p%C3%A6le.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- The Norwegian EPD Foundation. Precast Concrete One-Layer Elements. 2020. Available online: https://www.epd-norge.no/getfile.php/1312712-1583419315/EPDer/Byggevarer/Betongvarer/NEPD-2062-930_Precast-Concrete-One-Layer-Elements--.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI). National LCI DB. 2022. (In Korean). Available online: https://www.greenproduct.go.kr/epd/lci/lciDb.do (accessed on 1 April 2022).
- Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent v3.3; Ecoinvent: Zürich, Switzerland, 2016. Available online: https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/data-releases/ecoinvent-3-3/ (accessed on 1 December 2019).
- The International EPD System. EPD International AB, Sweden. Available online: https://www.environdec.com/home (accessed on 17 September 2023).
- Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute (KEITI). Environmental Product Declaration Certified Products. 2022. (In Korean). Available online: https://www.greenproduct.go.kr/epd/carbon/productStatusList.do (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Müller, H.S.; Breiner, R.; Moffatt, J.S.; Haist, M. Design and properties of sustainable concrete. Procedia Eng. 2014, 95, 290–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhagat, G.V.; Savoikar, P.P. Auditing carbon reduction potential of green concrete using life cycle assessment methodology. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 850, 012002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pishro, A.A.; Feng, X.; Ping, Y.; Dengshi, H.; Shirazinejad, R.S. Comprehensive equation of local bond stress between UHPC and reinforcing steel bars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 262, 119942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahedi, M.; Ramezanianpour, A.A.; Ramezanianpour, A.M. Evaluation of the mechanical properties and durability of cement mortars containing nanosilica and rice husk ash under chloride ion penetration. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 78, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, C.; Shen, O.; Shen, L.; Tang, L. Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, T.J.; Siong, H.C.; Noor, Z.Z. Assessment of embodied energy and global warming potential of building construction using life cycle analysis approach: Case studies of residential buildings in Iskandar Malaysia. Energy Build. 2015, 93, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Process | Detailed Survey Items | Considerations | ※ Notes | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PHC Pile | PC | ||||
Inputs | Raw materials | Aggregate |
|
| (a) |
Cement |
|
| |||
Silica |
| - | |||
Blast furnace slag | - |
| |||
Blast furnace slag cement |
| - | |||
Rebars |
|
| |||
Admixtures |
|
| |||
Water |
|
| (c) | ||
Ancillary materials | Form release oil |
|
| (c) | |
Lubricating oil |
|
| |||
Water |
|
| |||
Electricity |
|
| |||
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) |
|
| |||
Diesel | - |
| |||
Bunker C oil | - |
| |||
Manufacturing process | Electricity | Mold form and steel foundation production | Mold form production | - | |
Electricity | Mix and deposition of concrete | Rebar application | |||
Electricity | Centrifugal compaction | Mix and deposition of concrete | |||
Electricity, LNG, diesel, bunker C | Steam curing (Electricity, LNG) | Steam curing (Electricity, LNG, diesel, bunker C) | |||
Electricity | Form removal | Form removal | |||
Outputs | Waste | Steel scrap |
| Recycle | (b) |
Waste concrete |
|
| |||
Waste oil |
|
| |||
Emissions | Atmospheric emissions |
|
| - | |
Product | PHC pile |
|
|
Category | Definition | |
---|---|---|
PHC Pile | PC | |
Function | PHC piles (compressive strength: 800 kgf/cm2 or higher) that are concrete products used for foundation fabrication of structures | PC products made in factories in a transportable shape and size to be used as members, such as columns, beams, slabs, and walls in buildings |
Functional unit | 1 kg PHC pile production | 1 kg PC production |
Reference flow | 1 kg PHC pile | 1 kg PC |
No. | LCI DB List | ※ Notes | No. | LCI DB List | ※ Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Gravel aggregates | (a) | 10. | Industrial water | (a) |
2. | Forest sand aggregates | (a) | 11. | Supplied water | (a) |
3. | Portland cement type 1 | (a) | 12. | Electricity | (a) |
4. | Cement | (a) | 13. | LNG | (a) |
5. | Silica | (a) | 14. | Diesel | (a) |
6. | Rebar production | (a) | 15. | B-C oil | (a) |
7. | Blast furnace slag cement | (a) | 16. | Land transportation truck | (a) |
8. | Ground granulated blast furnace slag | (b) | 17. | Disposal, concrete | (b) |
9. | Lubricating oil | (a) | - | - | - |
GWP Data (kg CO2 eq/kg) | ※ Notes | GWP Data (kg CO2 eq/kg) | ※ Notes | GWP Data (kg CO2 eq/kg) | ※ Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.1797 | (a) | 0.2636 | (a) | 0.1770 | (b) |
0.1805 | (a) | 0.3062 | (a) | 0.1810 | (b) |
0.1805 | (a) | 0.1090 | (b) | 0.1950 | (b) |
0.1827 | (a) | 0.1132 | (b) | 0.1960 | (b) |
0.1844 | (a) | 0.1180 | (b) | 0.2010 | (b) |
0.1869 | (a) | 0.1263 | (b) | 0.2020 | (b) |
0.1894 | (a) | 0.1316 | (b) | 0.2050 | (b) |
0.1904 | (a) | 0.1329 | (b) | 0.2200 | (b) |
0.1908 | (a) | 0.1330 | (b) | 0.2210 | (b) |
0.1930 | (a) | 0.1350 | (b) | 0.2240 | (b) |
0.1930 | a) | 0.1360 | (b) | 0.2280 | (b) |
0.1941 | (a) | 0.1370 | (b) | 0.2290 | (b) |
0.2005 | (a) | 0.1550 | (b) | 0.2360 | (b) |
0.2103 | (a) | 0.1600 | (b) | 0.2360 | (b) |
0.2270 | (a) | 0.1660 | (b) | 0.2510 | (b) |
0.2361 | (a) | 0.1690 | (b) | 0.2590 | (b) |
0.2425 | (a) | 0.1690 | (b) | 0.2710 | (b) |
0.2500 | (a) | 0.1720 | (b) | - | - |
PHC Pile | PC | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Material | Weight Contribution | Cumulative Weight Contribution | Inclusion | Material | Weight Contribution | Cumulative Weight Contribution | Inclusion |
Coarse aggregate | 44.28% | 44.28% | O | Coarse aggregate | 44.07% | 44.07% | O |
Fine aggregate | 32.06% | 76.34% | O | Fine aggregate | 33.74% | 77.81% | O |
Cement | 14.28% | 90.62% | O | Cement | 14.14% | 91.95% | O |
Silica | 4.49% | 95.11% | O | Rebar | 6.38% | 98.33% | O |
Rebar | 2.62% | 97.73% | O | Blast furnace slag | 1.55% | 99.88% | O |
Blast furnace slag cement | 2.01% | 99.74% | O | Admixtures | 0.11% | 100.00% | X |
Admixtures | 0.26% | 100.00% | X | - | - | - | - |
GWP (kg CO2 eq/kg) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Major Embodied Emissions | Other | Total GWP | ||||
Inputs | Input Transport | Manufacturing Process | ||||
Cement | Rebar | Slag Cement | ||||
1.34 × 10−1 | 1.16 × 10−2 | 9.40 × 10−3 | 1.12 × 10−2 | 9.90 × 10−3 | 1.12 × 10−2 | 1.87 × 10−1 |
GWP (kg CO2 eq/kg) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Major Embodied Emissions | Other | Total GWP | ||||
Inputs | Input Transport | Manufacturing Process | ||||
Cement | Rebar | Electricity | ||||
1.13 × 10−1 | 2.75 × 10−2 | 7.07 × 10−3 | 1.88 × 10−2 | 5.13 × 10−3 | 5.99 × 10−3 | 1.77 × 10−1 |
Category | PHC Pile | PC | RMC | ※Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
A. Annual production (kg/y) | 6.30 × 109 | 2.57 × 109 | 4.01 × 1011 | - |
B. GWP emission factor (kg CO2-eq/kg) | 1.87 × 10−1 | 1.77 × 10−1 | 1.14 × 10−1 | (a) |
C. Annual emissions (kg CO2-eq/y) | 1.18 × 109 | 4.55 × 108 | 4.57 × 1010 | (b) |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, H.; Kim, J.; Roh, S. The Embodied Life Cycle Global Warming Potential of Off-Site Prefabricated Concrete Products: Precast Concrete and Concrete Pile Production in Korea. Buildings 2023, 13, 2590. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102590
Kim H, Kim J, Roh S. The Embodied Life Cycle Global Warming Potential of Off-Site Prefabricated Concrete Products: Precast Concrete and Concrete Pile Production in Korea. Buildings. 2023; 13(10):2590. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102590
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Hyunsik, Jeonghwan Kim, and Seungjun Roh. 2023. "The Embodied Life Cycle Global Warming Potential of Off-Site Prefabricated Concrete Products: Precast Concrete and Concrete Pile Production in Korea" Buildings 13, no. 10: 2590. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102590