Life Cycle Assessment of Internal Wall Panels: A Case Study of Sumerbank Kayseri Textile Factory Restoration Process
Abstract
This study presents a case study that aims to select the ideal internal wall panel option causing less environmental impact for the Sumerbank Kayseri Textile Factory restoration process, which is now used as part of Abdullah Gul University’s main campus. Since the university has an environmental agenda, examining the environmental impacts of the materials used for the ongoing restoration process has the potential to contribute to these goals. For this purpose, the three most used interior wall panels in the Turkish building material industry, gypsum, reinforced gypsum, and cement-based panels, were selected within the scope of the case study. The life cycle assessment (LCA) method was used to compare these options, and analyses were conducted using SimaPro software. The data required for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) were obtained based on market analyses and also from the EcoInvent Life Cycle Inventory Database. At the end of the study, damage assessment, weighting, and midpoint and endpoint data of the characterization results provided by the ReCiPe method were compared and interpreted. According to the overall results obtained for the described case conditions, reinforced gypsum panel causes the most adverse environmental impacts, followed by cement and gypsum panels, respectively.
Keywords
Ecosystem quality, human health, internal wall panels, life cycle assessment, resource use
Thanks
This article was presented at the ATI2022 “De-Constructing and Re-Using Architecture” Symposium and has been published only as an abstract. It represents a case study conducted as part of the ongoing Master’s Thesis at Abdullah Gul University, Graduate School of Engineering and Science, Department of Architecture. The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Ethics Committee approval was not required for the study.
References
- Abdullah Gul University (AGU). (n.d.). Sustainability at AGU. https://sustainability.agu.edu.tr/sdg11
- Acero, A., Rodríguez, C. & Ciroth, A. (2016). Impact assessment methods in life cycle assessment and their impact categories, Greendelta, 13-15.
- Balasbaneh, A.T., Bin Marsano, A.K. & Gohari, A. (2019). Sustainable materials selection based on flood damage assessment for a building using LCA and LCC. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222, 844-855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.005
- Ben-Alon, L., Loftness, V., Harries, K.A., DiPietro G. & Hameen, E.C. (2019). Cradle to site Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of natural vs conventional building materials: A case study on cob earthen material. Building and Environment, 160, 1 -10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.05.028
- British Standards Institution. (2006). BS EN ISO 14040: 2006 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework, London (ISO 14040).
- Buyle, M., Galle, W., Debacker, W. & Audenaert, A. (2019). Sustainability assessment of circular building alternatives: Consequential LCA and LCC for internal wall assemblies as a case study in a Belgian context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 218, 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.306
- Cascione, V., Roberts, M., Allen, S., Dams, B., Maskell, D., Shea, A., Walker, P. & Emmitt, S. (2022). Integration of life cycle assessments (LCA) in circular bio-based wall panel design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 344, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130938
- Cetiner, I. & Ceylan, N. (2013). Environmental consequences of rehabilitation of residential buildings in Turkey: A case study of Istanbul. Building and Environment, 69, 149-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.07.015
- Cetiner, I. & Levent, Ş. (2022). Production and construction process environmental impact assessment of waterproofing applications. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 37(1), 145- 158. doi: 10.17341/gazimmfd.723798
- Cooper, J. S. & Fava, J. (2006). Life cycle assessment practitioner survey: Summary of results. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(4), 12 -14.