Life cycle environmental loads and economic efficiencies of apartment buildings built with plaster board drywall
- Authors
- Tae, Sungho; Shin, Sungwoo; Kim, Hyungill; Ha, Sungkyun; Lee, Jongsun; Han, Sanghyun; Rhee, Jinwon
- Issue Date
- Oct-2011
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Keywords
- Plaster board drywall; Life cycle; CO2; Cost
- Citation
- Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, v.15, no.8, pp.4145 - 4155
- Indexed
- SCIE
SCOPUS
- Journal Title
- Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
- Volume
- 15
- Number
- 8
- Start Page
- 4145
- End Page
- 4155
- URI
- https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/erica/handle/2021.sw.erica/37174
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.rser.2011.06.009
- ISSN
- 1364-0321
- Abstract
- Due to the ease of remodeling apartment buildings, as well as the increased lifespans and performances required of apartment buildings, the demand for new plaster board drywall materials with outstanding flexibility is growing, and the importance of assessing the associated environmental load is increasing. This study evaluates the CO2 generated during the life cycle of a building (LCCO2) and its economic efficiency to assess the environmental loads and costs of buildings that use plaster board drywall. A typical concrete bearing wall structure for an apartment building was defined as case 1, and comparisons were performed with alternative samples (cases 2, 3, and 4) containing different ratios of plaster board drywall on top of case 1. The structural safety of each sample building was considered along with the legal incentives according to the use of variable type wall. In addition, life cycle assessments of both CO2 and economic efficiency were conducted according to stage, including the construction stage, operation/maintenance stage, and demolition/waste stage. Data including quantity of construction material, amount of energy usage, repair rate, and repair period (all of which are required during each stage of assessment) were utilized for the assessment of both CO2 and economic efficiency. As a result, in flat-type structures, the CO2 reduction rates of cases 2, 3, and 4 compared to case 1 were 1.0%, 4.5%, and 5.4%, respectively. In the assessment of cost, the reduction rates compared to case 1 were -0.01%, 5.8%, and 6.0%, respectively. Also, in the tower-type structure, the CO2 reduction rates of cases 2, 3, and 4 compared to case 1 were 1.3%, 4.9%, and 5.5%, respectively. In cost assessment, the reduction rates compared to case 1 were -1.1%, 3.3%, and 3.5%, respectively. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
- Files in This Item
-
Go to Link
- Appears in
Collections - COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING SCIENCES > MAJOR IN ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING > 1. Journal Articles
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.