IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i15p11548-d1202856.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Carbon Footprint of a CFRP-Grid Reinforced Concrete Façade Panel

Author

Listed:
  • Jana Gerta Backes

    (Institute of Sustainability in Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Laura Schmidt

    (Institute of Sustainability in Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Jan Bielak

    (Institute of Structural Concrete, Faculty of Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Pamela Del Rosario

    (Institute of Sustainability in Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Marzia Traverso

    (Institute of Sustainability in Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

  • Martin Claßen

    (Institute of Structural Concrete, Faculty of Civil Engineering, RWTH Aachen University, Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074 Aachen, Germany)

Abstract

Due to climate change and current efforts to reduce emissions in the construction sector, this study evaluates and discusses the results of a comparative cradle-to-grave Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), with a main focus on Global Warming Potential for functionally equivalent carbon-reinforced concrete (CRC) and steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) façade panels for the first time. The novelty of this study is the focus on construction waste and, in particular, the worst-case application of non-recycled construction waste. The use of CRC requires a lower concrete thickness than SRC because the carbon fiber reinforcement does not corrode, in contrast to steel reinforcement. Façade panels of the same geometrical dimensions and structural performance were defined as functional units (FU). Assuming an End-of-Life (EoL) scenario of 50% landfill and 50% recycling, the Global Warming Potential (GWP, given in CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e)) of the CRC façade (411–496 kg CO 2 e) is shown to perform better than or equal to the SRC façade (492 kg CO 2 e). Changing the assumption of CRC to a worst-case scenario, going fully to landfill and not being recycled (single life cycle), turns the GWP results in favor of the SRC façade. Assuming a 50-year service life for the SRC façade panel and relativizing the emissions to the years, the more durable CRC façade performs much better. Finally, depending on the system boundary, the assumed EoL and lifetime, CRC can represent a lower-emission alternative to a functionally equivalent component made of SRC. The most important and “novel” result in this study, which also leads to future research opportunities, is that delicate adjustments (especially concerning EoL scenarios and expected service life) can lead to completely different recommendations for decision-makers. Only by combining the knowledge of LCA experts, structural engineers, and builders optimal decisions can be made regarding sustainable materials and building components.

Suggested Citation

  • Jana Gerta Backes & Laura Schmidt & Jan Bielak & Pamela Del Rosario & Marzia Traverso & Martin Claßen, 2023. "Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Carbon Footprint of a CFRP-Grid Reinforced Concrete Façade Panel," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-20, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11548-:d:1202856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11548/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/15/11548/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jana Gerta Backes & Julian Suer & Nils Pauliks & Sabrina Neugebauer & Marzia Traverso, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of an Integrated Steel Mill Using Primary Manufacturing Data: Actual Environmental Profile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Natalia V. Starodubets & Irina S. Belik & Natalia L. Nikulina & Tamila T. Alikberova, 2023. "Assessment and Forecasting of Metallurgical Enterprises Carbon Footprint in the Sverdlovsk Region," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 22(3), pages 572-599.
    2. Davide Rovelli & Carlo Brondi & Michele Andreotti & Elisabetta Abbate & Maurizio Zanforlin & Andrea Ballarino, 2022. "A Modular Tool to Support Data Management for LCA in Industry: Methodology, Application and Potentialities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    3. Vaishnavi Vijay Rajulwar & Tetiana Shyrokykh & Robert Stirling & Tova Jarnerud & Yuri Korobeinikov & Sudip Bose & Basudev Bhattacharya & Debashish Bhattacharjee & Seetharaman Sridhar, 2023. "Steel, Aluminum, and FRP-Composites: The Race to Zero Carbon Emissions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-30, September.
    4. Julian Suer & Marzia Traverso & Nils Jäger, 2022. "Review of Life Cycle Assessments for Steel and Environmental Analysis of Future Steel Production Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-22, October.
    5. Michele Andreotti & Carlo Brondi & Davide Micillo & Ron Zevenhoven & Johannes Rieger & Ayoung Jo & Anne-Laure Hettinger & Jan Bollen & Enrico Malfa & Claudio Trevisan & Klaus Peters & Delphine Snaet &, 2023. "SDGs in the EU Steel Sector: A Critical Review of Sustainability Initiatives and Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-23, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:15:p:11548-:d:1202856. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.