پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 22 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 709 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,213 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 71,680,428 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 63,496,452 |
چارچوبی برای تلفیق ارزیابی چرخه حیات در مدیریت زنجیره ارزش ساختمان: یک تحلیل زیستمحیطی و اقتصادی | ||
| مدیریت زنجیره ارزش راهبردی | ||
| مقاله 1، دوره 3، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 8، اردیبهشت 1405، صفحه 1-21 اصل مقاله (650.7 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22075/svcm.2025.39486.1065 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| امید رضائی فر* 1؛ محمد سرجوقیان2؛ سیده مرضیه قیامی تکلیمی2 | ||
| 1گروه مهندسی عمران، دانشگاه سمنان، سمنان، ایران. | ||
| 2گروه مهندسی عمران، دانشگاه سمنان، سمنان، ایران | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 02 آبان 1404، تاریخ بازنگری: 03 آذر 1404، تاریخ پذیرش: 16 آذر 1404 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| مصرف گسترده مواد خام در صنعت ساختمان منجر به استفاده بیرویه از منابع طبیعی و افزایش مصرف انرژی در مراحل مختلف ساختوساز شده است. انتخاب مصالح با انرژی بالا، نه تنها در مرحله تولید، بلکه در طول عمر بهرهبرداری ساختمان نیز موجب افزایش تقاضای انرژی میشود. هدف این پژوهش، تحلیل اثرات زیستمحیطی مصالح رایج ساختمانی و تعیین جایگاه آنها در زنجیره ارزش با رویکرد توسعه پایدار است. در این مطالعه از روش ارزیابی چرخه حیات (LCA) با بهرهگیری از پایگاه داده Ecoinvent v2.0 استفاده شد. ارزیابی شامل مراحل تولید، حملونقل، ساخت و دفع نهایی برای مصالح متداول از جمله آجر، سرامیک، سیمان، چوب، فولاد، آلومینیوم، عایقها و شیشه بود. شاخصهای بررسیشده شامل انرژی اولیه، انتشار CO₂، مصرف آب، ضایعات و حملونقل در چارچوب زنجیره ارزش تعریف شدند. نتایج نشان داد که مصالح طبیعی مانند چوب و الیاف سلولزی کمترین تأثیرات زیستمحیطی و محصولات صنعتی مانند کاشی، آلومینیوم و فولاد بیشترین تأثیرات را دارند. استفاده از مصالح بازیافتی، سوختهای سبز و فناوریهای نوین تولید میتواند انتشار CO₂ و مصرف انرژی را بهطور محسوسی کاهش دهد. ارزیابی چرخه حیات ابزاری مؤثر برای تصمیمگیری آگاهانه در زنجیره ارزش مصالح ساختمانی است. توسعه فناوریهای پاک، ایجاد پایگاه داده ملی مصالح، و ترویج استفاده از برچسبهای زیستمحیطی میتواند رقابت مثبت میان تولیدکنندگان و حرکت به سوی ساختوساز پایدار را تقویت کند. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| ارزیابی چرخه حیات؛ مصالح ساختمانی؛ انرژی؛ تاثیر زیست محیطی؛ ساخت و ساز پایدار؛ زنجیره ارزش | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Framework for Integrating Life Cycle Assessment into Building Value Chain Management: An Environmental and Economic Analysis | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Omid Rezaifar1؛ Mohammad Sarjoughian2؛ Seyedeh Marzieh Qiyami Taklymi2 | ||
| 1Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran | ||
| 2Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The extensive consumption of raw materials in the construction industry has led to the overexploitation of natural resources and a significant increase in energy use throughout various construction phases. The selection of materials with high embodied energy not only raises energy demand during production but also contributes to higher operational energy consumption over the building’s service life. The objective of this study is to analyze the environmental impacts of common building materials and determine their position within the value chain from a sustainable development perspective. The research employed the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method using data from the Ecoinvent v2.0 database. The assessment covered the stages of material production, transportation, construction, and end-of-life disposal for widely used materials such as brick, cement, wood, steel, aluminum, insulation materials, and glass. The evaluated indicators included primary energy demand, CO₂ emissions, water consumption, waste generation, and transportation impacts, all analyzed within the framework of the construction value chain. The findings revealed that natural materials such as wood and cellulosic fibers have the lowest environmental impacts, whereas industrial materials like tiles, aluminum, and steel exhibit the highest. The use of recycled materials, green fuels, and advanced manufacturing technologies can significantly reduce CO₂ emissions and overall energy demand. LCA thus serves as an effective tool for informed decision-making within the building material value chain. Furthermore, promoting clean technologies, establishing national databases for building materials, and encouraging the use of environmental labeling can foster healthy competition among producers and advance the transition toward sustainable construction practices. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Building materials, Energy, Environmental impact, Sustainable construction, Value chain | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
ابونوری، دیبا و بهشتی نیا، محمدعلی. (1404). تحلیل SWOT-QSPM مبتنی بر زنجیره ارزش برای اولویتبندی استراتژیهای تأمینکنندگان صنعت خودرو: مطالعه موردی شرکت گسترش تک. مدیریت زنجیره ارزش راهبردی. 1-27، (2)2 doi: 10.22075/svcm.2025.37968.1028
پناهی گرجی محله، یوسف، نوذر اصل، کاوه و علی اکبری نوری، فهیمه. (1403). شناسایی فعالیتهای دستیابی به پایداری در تأمین مالی زنجیره ارزش. مدیریت زنجیره ارزش راهبردی. 93-106، (2)1. doi: 10.22075/svcm.2024.34985.1001
Abonori, D., & Beheshtinia, M. A. (2025). Prioritizing Strategies for Automotive Industry Suppliers: A Value Chain-Based SWOT-QSPM Analysis. Journal of Strategic Value Chain Management, 2(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.22075/svcm.2025.37968.1028, [In Persian].
Alhefnawi, M. A. M. (2021). Energy budget in an educational building in KSA: The case of cladding with terracotta and aluminium. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 12(3), 3255–3261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2021.01.024.
Amaral, R. E. C., Brito, J., Buckman, M., Drake, E., Ilatova, E., Rice, P., Sabbagh, C., Voronkin, S., & Abraham, Y. S. (2020). Waste Management and Operational Energy for Sustainable Buildings: A Review. Sustainability, 12(13), 5337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135337.
Barbhuiya, S., & Das, B. B. (2023). Life Cycle Assessment of construction materials: Methodologies, applications and future directions for sustainable decision-making. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 19, e02326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02326.
Beemsterboer, S., Baumann, H., & Wallbaum, H. (2025). The myth of informed decision-making: explaining the substantive effectiveness of LCA use in a building product development project. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-025-02472-5.
Cabeza, L. F., Boquera, L., Chàfer, M., & Vérez, D. (2021). Embodied energy and embodied carbon of structural building materials: Worldwide progress and barriers through literature map analysis. Energy and Buildings, 231, 110612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110612.
Chai, J., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2020). Decision-making techniques in supplier selection: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Expert Systems with Applications, 140, 112903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112903.
Collias, D. I., James, M. I., & Layman, J. M. (2021). Introduction—Circular Economy of Polymers and Recycling Technologies (pp. 1–21). https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2021-1391.ch001.
Deetman, S., Marinova, S., van der Voet, E., van Vuuren, D. P., Edelenbosch, O., & Heijungs, R. (2020). Modelling global material stocks and flows for residential and service sector buildings towards 2050. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245, 118658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118658.
Di Maria, A., Eyckmans, J., & Van Acker, K. (2018). Downcycling versus recycling of construction and demolition waste: Combining LCA and LCC to support sustainable policy making. Waste Management, 75, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.01.028.
Dixit, M. K. (2017). Life cycle embodied energy analysis of residential buildings: A review of literature to investigate embodied energy parameters. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 390–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.051.
Duan, Z., Huang, Q., & Zhang, Q. (2022). Life cycle assessment of mass timber construction: A review. Building and Environment, 221, 109320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109320.
Fahlstedt, O., Rasmussen, F. N., Temeljotov-Salaj, A., Huang, L., & Bohne, R. A. (2024). Building renovations and life cycle assessment - A scoping literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 203, 114774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114774.
Farina, A., Zanetti, M. C., Santagata, E., & Blengini, G. A. (2017). Life cycle assessment applied to bituminous mixtures containing recycled materials: Crumb rubber and reclaimed asphalt pavement. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 117, 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.015.
Ghisellini, P., Ripa, M., & Ulgiati, S. (2018). Exploring environmental and economic costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and demolition sector. A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 618–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.207
Hazarika, N., & Zhang, X. (2019). Factors that drive and sustain eco-innovation in the construction industry: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Cleaner Production, 238, 117816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117816.
Honic, M., Kovacic, I., & Rechberger, H. (2019). Improving the recycling potential of buildings through Material Passports (MP): An Austrian case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 217, 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.212.
Huang, Z., Zhou, H., Miao, Z., Tang, H., Lin, B., & Zhuang, W. (2024). Life-Cycle Carbon Emissions (LCCE) of Buildings: Implications, Calculations, and Reductions. Engineering, 35, 115–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2023.08.019.
Hunkeler, D. (2016). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A Guide to Best Practice. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(7), 1063–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1083-z.
Ingrao, C., Messineo, A., Beltramo, R., Yigitcanlar, T., & Ioppolo, G. (2018). How can life cycle thinking support sustainability of buildings? Investigating life cycle assessment applications for energy efficiency and environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.080.
Kabirifar, K., Mojtahedi, M., Wang, C., & Tam, V. W. Y. (2020). Construction and demolition waste management contributing factors coupled with reduce, reuse, and recycle strategies for effective waste management: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121265.
Kumar, D., Alam, M., Zou, P. X. W., Sanjayan, J. G., & Memon, R. A. (2020). Comparative analysis of building insulation material properties and performance. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131, 110038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110038.
Minde, P., & Kore, K. (2025). Life cycle energy assessment of conventional and modular buildings: a case study analysis in the Indian context. Energy Efficiency, 18(8), 98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-025-10392-4.
Norouzi, M., Chàfer, M., Cabeza, L. F., Jiménez, L., & Boer, D. (2021). Circular economy in the building and construction sector: A scientific evolution analysis. Journal of Building Engineering, 44, 102704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102704.
Nwodo, M. N., & Anumba, C. J. (2019). A review of life cycle assessment of buildings using a systematic approach. Building and Environment, 162, 106290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106290.
Panahi Gorji Mahalleh, Y., Nowzarasl, K., & Aliakbari Nouri, F. (2024). Identifying practices to achieve sustainability in value chain finance. Journal of Strategic Value Chain Management, 1(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.22075/svcm.2024.34985.1001, [In Persian].
Pisello, A. L., D’Alessandro, A., Sambuco, S., Rallini, M., Ubertini, F., Asdrubali, F., Materazzi, A. L., & Cotana, F. (2017). Multipurpose experimental characterization of smart nanocomposite cement-based materials for thermal-energy efficiency and strain-sensing capability. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 161, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2016.11.030.
Sacchi, R., Terlouw, T., Siala, K., Dirnaichner, A., Bauer, C., Cox, B., Mutel, C., Daioglou, V., & Luderer, G. (2022). PRospective EnvironMental Impact asSEment (premise): A streamlined approach to producing databases for prospective life cycle assessment using integrated assessment models. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 160, 112311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112311.
Simonsen, G., Ravotti, R., O’Neill, P., & Stamatiou, A. (2023). Biobased phase change materials in energy storage and thermal management technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 184, 113546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113546.
Sonderegger, T., & Stoikou, N. (2023). Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods in the ecoinvent database v3. 10. Ecoinvent Association: Zürich, Switzerland.
Yuan, L., Yang, B., Lu, W., & Peng, Z. (2024). Carbon footprint accounting across the construction waste lifecycle: A critical review of research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 107, 107551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2024.107551.
Zabalza Bribián, I., Valero Capilla, A., & Aranda Usón, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1133–1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002.
Zhao, J., & Li, S. (2022). Life cycle cost assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis of environment-friendly building insulation materials - A review. Energy and Buildings, 254, 111582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111582.
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 198 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 105 |
||