Приказ основних података о документу

dc.creatorMarinković, Snežana
dc.creatorCarević, Vedran
dc.creatorDragaš, Jelena
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-22T13:36:40Z
dc.date.available2022-12-22
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn0959-6526
dc.identifier.urihttps://grafar.grf.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/2232
dc.description.abstractIn comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of concrete structures it is of crucial importance to provide the functional equivalence of compared alternatives. Most commonly, the comparison is performed between the structures made of conventional and green concrete mixtures. Since they have different mechanical and durability properties, corresponding structures have different strength and service life. While resolving this problem, two approaches are generally possible: either correction of the functional unit volume or correction of the calculated environmental impacts with compressive strength and duration of service life, if functional unit has the same volume. In this work, in order to assess the effect of service life modeling in LCA, both approaches were tested. As a demonstration, comparison of both slabs and beams made of conventional and high volume fly ash concrete exposed to carbonation was carried out. LCA was performed for 94 different mixtures from reported experimental research and calculated environmental impacts (climate change, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical-oxidant creation, and abiotic depletion of fossil fuels) for both approaches were compared. Results showed that different modeling of service life in LCA can result in totally different, even opposite conclusions. With slightly larger volume of functional unit (7%–20%), all normalized environmental impacts of high volume fly ash concrete structural members were lower for an order of magnitude (6–7 times) compared to those obtained on the basis of the same volume approach. Therefore, drawing conclusions only on the basis of service life modeling with the same volume approach may be misleading. The proper choice of the best alternative should be based on the integrated assessment which includes structural, environmental and cost assessment of the structure as a whole.sr
dc.language.isoensr
dc.publisherElsevier Ltdsr
dc.relationinfo:eu-repo/grantAgreement/MESTD/Technological Development (TD or TR)/36017/RS//sr
dc.rightsembargoedAccesssr
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.sourceJournal of Cleaner Productionsr
dc.subjectConcrete structuresr
dc.subjectService lifesr
dc.subjectLCAsr
dc.subjectEnvironmental impactsr
dc.subjectIntegrated assessmentsr
dc.titleThe role of service life in Life Cycle Assessment of concrete structuressr
dc.typearticlesr
dc.rights.licenseBY-NC-NDsr
dc.rights.holderElsevier Ltd.sr
dc.citation.rankaM21
dc.citation.spage125610
dc.citation.volume290
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125610
dc.identifier.fulltexthttp://grafar.grf.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/8951/Manuscript.pdf
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85099503766
dc.identifier.wos000620275100008
dc.type.versionacceptedVersionsr


Документи

Thumbnail

Овај документ се појављује у следећим колекцијама

Приказ основних података о документу