Life cycle assessment of seismic retrofit alternatives for reinforced concrete frame buildings. (March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Salgado, Rafael A.; Apul, Defne; Guner, Serhan
• Is Part Of: Journal of building engineering. Volume 28(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-03
• Subjects: Life cycle assessment -- Reinforced concrete -- Seismic retrofit -- Frame structures -- Recycling; Building -- Periodicals; 690.05
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101064
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2352-7102

Abstract

Abstract: Reinforced concrete structures designed prior to modern building codes are still in use today. These structures are known for their inadequate design and fragile performance during earthquakes. Over the past decades, several seismic retrofitting alternatives have been proposed as strengthening solutions for these buildings. Since the construction industry has a significant environmental burden, the impacts of the retrofit solutions should also be considered in the decision-making process of a possible seismic strengthening intervention. In this study, we performed a life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis of three seismic retrofit alternatives for reinforced concrete structures, namely, RC column jacketing, beam weakening, and shear walls. An 8-story reinforced concrete case-study building available in the literature was adopted for the LCA analysis. The environmental impacts of the selected alternatives were quantified from cradle-to-grave and two disposal phase options were studied in a sensitivity analysis: landfilling and recycling. Detailed calculations and assumptions were made in order to obtain the inventory data for the impact assessment of the three alternatives. The calculated LCA results were compared and interpreted among the analyzed retrofit alternatives. The shear wall total environmental impacts were the highest of all the studied alternatives. The pre-installation (i.e., production) and disposal of the materials required by each alternative were the phases with the highest environmental impacts, while transportation impacts were comparatively small. Recycling of the construction and demolition waste reduced the environmental impacts in the disposal phase by 29%–53%, with a lower total environmental impact reduction of 12%–42% for all the retrofit alternatives studied. Highlights: Shear wall was the most environmentally degrading seismic retrofit alternative. Beam weakening and column jacketing had 27% of the impacts of the shear wall. Production and landfilling of the retrofit materials impact the environment the most. Avoiding demolition and reconstruction of walls can reduce the impacts by 35%–75%. Recycling of the construction and demolition waste can reduce impacts by 12%–42%.