Você está na página 1de 77
Project Cluster LIFETIME Lifetime Engineering of Buildi ngs and Civil Infrastructures European guide for life time

Project Cluster LIFETIME Lifetime Engineering of Buildings and Civil Infrastructures

European guide for life time design and management of civil infrastructures and buildings

Project Cluster Lifetime Authors:

Prof. Dr. Asko Sarja, Technical Research Centre, VTT, Finland, Co-ordinator asko.sarja@vtt.fi asko.sarja@innokas.com Prof. Bamforth, Taywood Ltd, UK Dr. Caccavelli and Dr. Jean-Luc Chevalier, CSTB, France Prof. Sevket Durucan, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, Royal School of Mines, UK

Espoo 14. October, 2005

Contents

INTRODUCTION

4

  • 1 Analysis methodology in lifetime engineering

6

  • 1.1 Classification of generic requirements

.................................................................................

6

  • 1.2 Analysis of lifetime functionality and performance

7

  • 1.2.1 General model for deterioration

...................................................................................

7

  • 1.2.2 Determination of model parameters

...........................................................................

12

Software

  • 1.2.3 .....................................................................................................................

14

  • 1.3 Analysis of lifetime economy

16

Definitions

  • 1.3.1 ..................................................................................................................

16

  • 1.3.2 The need for analysis of lifetime economy

................................................................

16

  • 1.3.3 Undertaking analysis of lifetime economy

17

  • 1.3.4 Dealing with uncertainty

............................................................................................

18

  • 1.3.5 Dealing with Net Present Value

.................................................................................

18

  • 1.4 Analysis of Lifetime Ecology (LCA)

.................................................................................

20

  • 1.4.1 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

20

  • 1.4.2 Mining Life Cycle Modelling: Cluster Project LICYMIN

24

  • 2 Predictive models for deterioration of structures - alternative principles of Lifecon methods 33

..

  • 2.1 Alternative models

33

  • 2.2 Statistical degradation models [Lifecon D3.2]

33

  • 2.3 RILEM TC 130 CSL models [Lifecon D2.1]

34

  • 2.4 Reference structure models [Lifecon D2.2]

.......................................................................

34

  • 2.5 Environmental load parameters [Lifecon D4.1]

35

  • 2.6 Quantitative classification of environmental loads [Lifecon D4.2]

...................................

36

  • 2.7 GIS-based quantification of environmental load parameters [Lifecon D4.3]

....................

37

  • 3 Multiple criteria decision making for selecting investment

.......................................................

39

  • 3.1 Principles and methods of multiple criteria decision making

............................................

39

  • 3.1.1 The Aim of the Methods

39

  • 3.1.2 Multi Attribute Decision Aid (MADA)

39

  • 3.1.3 Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

........................................................................

41

Risk Analysis

  • 3.1.4 .............................................................................................................

41

  • 3.2 Decision making tool for multiple criteria decision making

..............................................

43

Method

  • 3.2.1 .......................................................................................................................

43

  • 3.2.2 INVESTIMMO: A multicriteria investment decision-making tool

...........................

45

References

50

  • 4 Predictive and integrated life cycle management system

51

  • 4.1 Principles

51

  • 4.2 Methods and procedures

53

  • 4.2.1 Optimisation and Decision-Making Methodology

53

  • 4.2.2 Reliability Based Systematics

....................................................................................

56

  • 4.3 Management system

58

  • 5 LCCP model design and user manual

........................................................................................

62

  • 5.1 The general framework for the LCCP model

.....................................................................

62

  • 5.2 WLC model components

64

  • 5.3 Dealing with uncertainties

65

  • 5.4 Software applications

65

INTRODUCTION

Buildings and civil and industrial infrastructures are the longest lasting and most important products

of our societies. However, traditionally most of the considerations and methods in design and

management have been focused on a quite short term, and long term economy and performance of

structures have been taken into account quite implicitly only.

There is a clear need for a uniform European approach for assessing, validating and operating Civil

Infrastructures and Buildings with full consideration of lifetime usability (functionality and

technical performance in use], safety, health and comfort), economic and ecological sustainability.

This kind of holistic approach raises needs for a wide co-operation of several experts from research

and practice. A European consortium of outstanding experts from research and practice is ideal for

carrying out a creative work for LIFECON objectives. Considering the fragmented European

construction industry it is of vital importance that a project addressing these issues is operating on a

European level with full participation of the important key actors in the sector.

Lifetime engineering is an innovative idea and a concretisation of this idea for solving the dilemma

between a very long-term product and a short-term design, management and maintenance planning.

Lifetime engineering includes:

  • - Lifetime investment planning and decision making

  • - Integrated lifetime design

  • - Integrated lifetime management and maintenance planning

  • - Modernisation, reuse, recycling and disposal

  • - End-of Life Management and

  • - Environmental monitoring and impact assessment.

The integrated lifetime engineering methodology is aiming at regulating optimisation and

guaranteeing the life cycle human conditions, economy, cultural compatibility and ecology with

technical performance parameters. With the aid of lifetime engineering we can thus predict and

optimise the human conditions (functionality, safety, health and comfort), the monetary (financial)

economy and the economy of the nature (ecology). Beside these, also social aspects have to be

taken into consideration.

Cluster:”Life time design and management of civil infrastructures and buildings,

LIFETIME”, consisted of the following five projects:

  • 1. INVESTIMMO: A Decision Making Tool for Long-Term Efficient Investment Strategies in Housing Maintenance and Refurbishment. Co-ordinator: Dr. Dominique Caccavelli, CSTB, France

  • 2. EUROLIFEFORM: A probabilistic approach for predicting the life cycle cost and performance of buildings and civil infrastructure. Co-ordinator: Prof. Phil Bamforth, Taylor Woodrow, UK

  • 3. LIFECON: Life Cycle Management of Concrete Infrastructures for improved sustainability. Co-ordinator: Prof. Dr. Asko Sarja, VTT Building and Transport, Finland

  • 4. LICYMIN: Life Cycle Environmental Impact in Mining. Co-ordinator: Prof. Dr. Sevket Durucan,

ICSTM, UK

  • 5. CONLIFE: Life-time prediction of high performance concrete with respect to durability. Co- ordinator: Prof. Dr. Setzer, Prof. Dr. Max J. Setzer, Universität Essen (DE)

The Cluster Lifetime had a common management, which was carried out by a Management Group.

The Management Group consisted of the following five co-ordinators of the “LIFETIME” projects:

Prof. Dr. Asko Sarja, Technical Research Centre, VTT, Finland, Co-ordinator

Prof. Bamforth, Taywood Ltd, UK

Dr. Caccavelli and Dr. Jean-Luc Chevalier, CSTB, France

Prof. Sevket Durucan, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine, Royal School of

Mines, UK

Prof. Dr. Max J. Setzer, Technical University Ruhr-Essen, Germany

The objectives of the Cluster “LIFETIME” have been defined as follows:

  • - to integrate the knowledge of partners of these five projects for advancing the work and results of all projects

  • - to co-operate in similar tasks in order to avoid parallel overlapping work and parallel results

  • - to produce an integrated and generic “European Guide for Life Time Design and Management of Civil Infrastructures and Buildings” in order to contribute the development process in practical application of Life Time Design and Management on different sub areas and by different owners.

  • - To integrate the Information Networks through linking between these five projects

  • - To create and deliver a continuously updated database of produced models for later European exploitation

This report: European Guide for Life Time Design and Management of Civil Infrastructures and

Buildings is the main deliverable of the Cluster Lifetime. It has been produced in co-operation

between the co-ordinators and other central persons of the Cluster projects. Final writing work has

been carried out in the Thematic Network Lifetime, which has included all co-ordinators of the

Cluster projects as Principal Contractors, and has worked under co-ordination of Professor Asko

Sarja.

The full results of the five Lifetime Cluster projects and of the Thematic Network Lifetime are

available from the websites, which are listed in the list of references of this report.

Espoo, 15. August, 2005

Co-ordinator

Professor Asko Sarja

Analysis methodology in lifetime engineering

Classification of generic requirements

Contributor: Asko Sarja

The objective of the integrated and predictive lifetime management is to achieve optimised and

controlled lifetime quality of buildings and civil infrastructures in relation to the generic

requirements. This objective can be achieved with a performance-based methodology, applying

generic limit state approach.

The lifetime quality means the capability of the structures to fulfil the multiple requirements of the

users, owners and society in an optimised way during the entire design or planning period (usually

50 to 100 years). The multiple generic requirements are presented in Table 0.1.

Table 0.1 Generic classified requirements of structures and buildings.

  • 1. Human requirements

  • 2. Economic requirements

functionality in use

investment economy

safety

construction economy

health

lifetime economy in:

comfort

  • - operation

 
  • - maintenance

  • - repair

  • - rehabilitation

  • - renewal

  • - demolition

  • - recovery and reuse

  • - recycling of materials

  • - disposal

  • 3. Cultural requirements

  • 4. Ecological requirements

building traditions

raw materials economy

life style

energy economy

business culture

environmental burdens economy

aesthetics

waste economy

architectural styles and trends

biodiversity

image

Analysis of lifetime functionality and performance

Contributors: Dominique Caccavelli and Manuel Bauer

The deterioration of building elements is a normal consequence of the ageing process. However, a

number of parameters like the quality of construction, the climatic conditions, or the lack of

maintenance, can greatly influence this process. Considering the fact that the operational costs of a

building will grow with time and that problems get worse unless some actions are taken, the

necessity for maintaining, refurbishing or upgrading actions becomes evident. Such actions mainly

concern the physical and functional building elements, as well as energy consumption and indoor

environment quality.

The next diagram shows the possible time evolution of an external coating. The « y » axis

represents the deterioration state measured with a discrete code. A “low quality” coating will have a

short life (zone in red), and a “high quality” coating will have a long life (zone in green). These

zones depend clearly not only on the manufacturing and the materials of the element (ex: synthetic

or mineral coating) but also on the maintenance (ex: cleaning, painting) and the environment (ex:

facade exposed to wind and rain).

Without any important change in the element’s environment, the following deterioration process

will occur in a delimited zone.

Analysis of lifetime f unctionality and performance Contributors: Dominique Caccavelli and Manuel Bauer The deterioration of

Figure 0.1 Possible time evolution of a building element. Illustration of the “Quality” concept

General model for deterioration

In INVESTIMMO, a predictive model describing the deterioration process of building elements

was developed. This model is based on EPIQR, a European diagnosis methodology and software

for apartment building refurbishment that was developed in the framework of a previous research

The EPIQR method considers 49 elements in a building. Four codes (a, b, c, d) describe the state of

deterioration of the elements. A code a means a new or excellent condition element; in d code, the

performance of the element is no more assured at the end of its life. b and c are intermediate states.

These codes have been defined accurately for all elements and can be observed during a building

survey. A deterioration model should be able to describe the deterioration code of an element for

the following years.

The EPIQR method considers 49 elements in a building. Four codes ( a , b ,

Figure 0.2 EPIQR deterioration codes. Example: surroundings, element 1 (French version)

The deterioration process can vary from one to another building. In a building sampling, the time

when a deterioration code can be observed delimits intervals: after some time, no more a can be

observed. Following this reasoning, one can define probability curves for an element of a building

to be in a, b, c or d codes at a given time.

In the next figure, probability curves, built with about 300 INVESTIMMO surveyed buildings are

shown. One can see that the element 03 (façade) of a building can be in deterioration code a (blue

curve) after 20 years with a probability of 0.6 and in deterioration code b (light blue curve) with a

probability of 0.4. After 80 years, the probability to be in d (red curve) code is almost 1.

Figure 0.3 Probability curves calculated for element 03 (f acade). Code a (dark blue), code b

Figure 0.3 Probability curves calculated for element 03 (facade). Code a (dark blue), code b (light

blue), code c (yellow), code d (red)

These probability curves can also be plotted on a single cumulative diagram (Figure 0.4):

Figure 0.3 Probability curves calculated for element 03 (f acade). Code a (dark blue), code b

Figure 0.4 Cumulative curves calculated for element 03 (facade). Code a (dark blue), code b (light

blue), code c (yellow), code d (red)

The y-axis of the diagram can be interpreted as the building quality space (0q1). If q=0, the

element is high quality with a long life span. It will be in d code only after 75 years (beginning of

the red zone when y=0). If q=1, the element is low quality, and will be in d code only after 30 years

in this example (beginning of the red zone when y=1). The model makes the assumption that the

quality of the element remains constant during time.

The knowledge of the quality of an element or at least an interval of quality defines its future

evolution of deterioration.

Quality interval based on survey data

During the building survey 1 the following information was collected for each element and type:

  • - The deterioration code (a, b, c, d)

  • - The age of the element (duration from last refurbishment action).

This information is used to define the quality interval of the building element.

Quality interval based on survey data During the building survey the following information was collected for

Figure 0.5 Quality interval estimation

In the above example, the age of the element is of 40 years and the code is b. It defines a value

0,51q 0,89: it means that this element is a medium/high quality one.

Quality interval based on other information

Another possibility to fix the quality is to fix the influent parameters (country, type, …) this

refinement leads to a narrower zone on the graph.

The user can also fix the quality interval if he has detailed information about an element.

In the model prediction, the three quality intervals (user, country and based on survey information)

are merged to calculate a resulting quality interval (see Figure 0.6)

1 In the framework of the INVESTIMMO project, a total of 349 building audits was performed in seven European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark, Poland and Hellas.) The aim of these surveys was to collect the necessary data in order to:

• Analyze the influence of various factors on the building deterioration and to develop correlations between these factors and the deterioration process, • Construct a European database on building element deterioration, • Prepare a set of Guidelines on building’s deterioration.

Figure 0.6 Resulting model quality If no overlap exists (conflict), then the survey observation has priority.

Figure 0.6 Resulting model quality

If no overlap exists (conflict), then the survey observation has priority.

Calculation of future deterioration codes

By means of this graphic, one can build the predictive degradation model of an element. The

changes between states are expressed in terms of intervals. These intervals represent the uncertainty

of the prediction (Figure 0.7).

Figure 0.6 Resulting model quality If no overlap exists (conflict), then the survey observation has priority.

Figure 0.7 Time passage estimation for element 03 (facade)

The time passage from a to b, from b to c and from c to d can then be estimated on the above

diagram.

On this graph:

  • - txy_min means minimal time of passage from x to y, i.e. a pessimistic point of view (lowest quality),

  • - txy_max means maximal time of passage from x to y, i.e. an optimistic point of view (highest quality).

Results are plotted in the next figure (the time is set to zero at the observation).

- txy_min means minimal time of passage from x to y, i.e. a pessimistic point of

Figure 0.8 Time passage interval for element 03 (facade)

In a more detailed and probabilistic approach, one can calculate the conditional probability to be at

a current state at any time, knowing the deterioration code at a certain time.

Determination of model parameters

The probability curves have been built using survey data (about 300 couples of code and age

examples).

Survey data distributions

The survey data give directly the age distribution of the deterioration code for the building

population. For example, the probability to have a building (in fact an element of a building) with

an age y between x and x+x in the code k in a building population is given by:

y k [ x, x +

x ] = n k [ x , x + x ] N k

where

k = a, b, c or d

n k [ x, x + ∆x ] is the number of code a buildings aged between x and x+x

and

N k

is the total number of code k buildings

These distributions have been fitted using the beta function and an automatic fitting procedure. This

function has been chosen after studying different functions (Gauss, Rayleigh, Weibull) because it is

a non-symmetric function, with various shape possibilities and only 4 parameters.

Figure 0.9 Code distributions for element 39 (windows) , manual fitting with a Rayleigh function Type

Figure 0.9 Code distributions for element 39 (windows), manual fitting with a Rayleigh function

Type modelling

The fit considers all types for a single element. If the analysis shows different behaviours between

types, than the types are separated (four curves for each type). Ideally, all types should be

considered separately but the number of examples of each type is too small to lead a relevant

statistical analysis.

Probability calculation and cumulative curves

At a given age x, the probability for a building element to be in deterioration code k is given by:

y k ( x )

p k ( x ) =

 

f a (

x

)

= p a (

x )

f b (

x )

= p a ( x ) + p b ( x )

y k ( x ) + y b ( x ) + y c ( x ) + y d ( x )

The cumulative curves are derived from the probability curves:

f c ( x ) = p a ( x ) + p b ( x ) + p c ( x ) f d ( x ) = p a ( x ) + p b ( x ) + p c ( x ) + p d ( x ) = 1

Figure 0.10 Distribution y (x) (up), probability p (x) (middle) and cumulative curves f (x) (down)

Figure 0.10 Distribution y k (x) (up), probability p k (x) (middle) and cumulative curves f k (x) (down)

Software

The model predicting the evolution of building element degradation has been implemented in a

visual basic program. This software has been tested on simple case studies to show that the output is

rational. The program has a simple and efficient interface (Figure 0.11).

Figure 0.11 Model implementation in visual basic

Figure 0.11 Model implementation in visual basic

Analysis of lifetime economy

Contributor: Phil Bamfort

Definitions

Whole Life Costing is becoming an increasingly common feature in the procurement of built assets.

The Whole Life Cost includes

Capital costs for construction

The costs for planned preventative maintenance, reactive maintenance and repairs

Life cycle costs for replacement of elements

The operational costs of the asset

End of life costs which may include demolition or refurbishment

There is much debate about the specific term to be used in defining the lifetime cost of an asset with

Whole Life Cost and Life Cycle Costs both being used. In practice in the UK, Life Cycle Costs

refer specifically to the replacement costs of specific elements while Whole Life Costs refer to the

total cost including the items listed above.

The need for analysis of lifetime economy

A principal reason for the growing interest in WLC is that Governments are demanding better

value rather than lowest capital costs and require that tenders include not only the cost of building

but also the expected lifetime costs for planned preventative maintenance, replacement and repairs.

Furthermore, procurement methods such as Private Finance Initiative (PFI), Public Private

Partnership (PPP) and Build, Own, Operate, Transfer (BOOT) are becoming more popular. Such

projects require that the developer maintains responsibility for the asset for a defined contract

period (typically 25-30 years) and during that time has contractual responsibility for ensuring that

the asset continues to meet its functional requirements by maintaining acceptable serviceability

levels. At the end of the contract period the asset is then handed over to the client in a condition

that meets the client’s requirements for a defined residual life.

Enlightened clients are also increasingly recognising the benefit of sustainable construction, not

only in relation to their own strategic development but also with regard to public opinion, branding

and benefits associated with planning applications.

Whole life costing may be used at all the important decision stages in the procurement,

construction, use and finally the disposal of the asset, for example:

the initial investment appraisal or decision whether or not to build or acquire by purchase

or lease

the assessment of feasibility of alternative construction solutions, including replacement

and/or maintenance over the life of the asset

outline design

detailed design (including choice of components and services)

tender appraisal

assessment of variations during the course of construction

hand-over and final account

assessment of the effectiveness of the construction (post-occupancy evaluation)

At each decision stage of a project, as additional and more reliable information becomes available,

the calculation of the life cycle costs may be refined, to provide increased accuracy of predictions of

the life cycle costs of the project. The aim must be to achieve recognition of the optimum whole life

cost of the asset, balancing the optimum value, the minimum overall life cycle cost and the

maximum functionality.

Undertaking analysis of lifetime economy

Analysis of lifetime economy may be undertaken at various levels. At project inception, strategic

decisions are required to determine whether it a project is economically viable. As the process

proceeds through concept and detailed design, the amount of information that is needed increases

substantially to enable various design options to be evaluated and selected. However, post

construction, the focus is less on individual components than on the performance of the systems or

spaces created (Figure 0.12).

In an ideal world, a complete database of life cycle information would be available for all of the

available building materials and components, and an internationally accepted (and possibly

standardised) method for applying these data would be available. In the real world however the

data are fragmented, if available at all, and various processes are used to establish the performance,

cost and societal and environmental impacts over the life of a built asset.

It is important therefore that whatever data are used they are suitably qualified. The factors used in

the ISO 15686 approach for estimating service life provide some guidance requiring the user to

apply factors for levels of quality, design and execution (these factors impacting upon the as-built

quality) and the conditions of exposure, use and maintenance in service.

Clients brief - feasibility

 

Concept design

 

Detailed design

Construction

 

Commissioning

Operation

Residual cost or value

At each decision stage of a project, as additional and more reliable information becomes available, the
At each decision stage of a project, as additional and more reliable information becomes available, the

Strategic level

 

System level

 

Detail level

 

System level

 

Strategic level

Figure 0.12 Information requirements through the life of an asset

The real skill in WLC lays not so much in the mechanics of the process. The availability of

spreadsheets has made it possible for almost anyone with basic mathematical skills and computer

literacy to produce a WLC model at a simplistic level and WLC calculators and comparators

abound. The required output is usually a prediction of annual costs and a cost profile over the life

140 120 100 40 60 80 20 0 Cost 26 16 21 11 6 1
140
120
100
40
60
80
20
0
Cost
26
16
21
11
6
1

Years

Estimated 0 5 10 15 30 20 25 flow positive cash cost schedule 0 flow negitive
Estimated
0
5
10
15
30
20
25
flow
positive cash
cost schedule
0
flow
negitive cash
Cumulative cost
100
200
300
400
500
600

Years

Figure 0.13 Predicted annual cost Figure 0.14 Cumulative cost profile

The importance of the cost profile is most apparent for PFI type contracts within which the client

expects to pay a fixed annual fee (perhaps linked to inflation). Hence the contractor must be able to

spread the costs in a way that is both acceptable to the client and which minimises negative cash

flow.

The real difficulty with WLC, particularly at the design level, is in knowing what numbers to put in

the appropriate boxes. When are interventions necessary? How much will be spent on PPM and at

what rate? And how much will be spent replacing elements when they cease to fulfil the function

for which they were designed? The first step in the process of Whole Cycle Costing is, therefore, to

predict when events or interventions occur. Costs are then attached to these interventions and a

WLC profile may be estimated. So the analysis of lifetime economy starts with the analysis of

lifetime functionality and performance (Section 1.2). Without the ability to predict, with some

degree of reliability, the performance of the asset and its component parts the process of WLC

cannot even begin. ISO 15686 provides an approach to estimation of service life which, although

relatively simplistic, at least provides guidance on those factors that are significant.

Dealing with uncertainty

When dealing with an abundance of data, much of which is fraught with uncertainty, the only sure

thing is that the predicted performance and hence the predicted cost profile will not be matched in

reality. In order to make reasoned decisions about how the risk should be managed we need to

know by how much the predicted performance, and hence costs may vary from the estimate. Hence

the decision making process must necessarily include an acknowledgement of the uncertainties in

both the predictive process and the input data.

Dealing with Net Present Value

A central feature of WLC is the application of Net Present Value. This involves converting future

costs to present day value to take account of interest rates and inflation. However, even at modest

discount rates, the NPV reduces rapidly, hence making Capital investment for long-term

performance unattractive to the developer in simple cost terms (Figure 0.15). For example, at a

discount rate of only 4%, the NPV is less than 50% of the cost at 20 years, and ay higher discount

rates the NPV reduces even further. On purely economic grounds this makes it more attractive to

spend less now and more later.

100 Discount Rate 80 2% 60 4% 40 6% 20 8% 0 0 20 40 60
100
Discount Rate
80
2%
60
4%
40
6%
20
8%
0
0
20
40
60
NPV (%)

Time (years)

Figure 0.15 The change in Net Present Values with time, expressed as a percentage of current cost

Furthermore, the uncertainties associated with predicting changes in future interest and inflation

rates can be greater than those attached to predictions of service life. Care should be taken,

therefore, when applying discount rates within a WLC calculation.

Analysis of Lifetime Ecology (LCA)

Contributors: Sevket Durucan and Anna Korre

The LIFETIME cluster project LICYMIN focused on life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of a

minerals production operation and developed an LCIA model (LICYMIN) for the minerals

industry. This section describes the concept and the methodology involved in Life Cycle

Assessment (LCA) as an environmental management tool for all forms of materials and industries

and its specific application in the cluster project LICYMIN.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Life cycle assessment is a “cradle-to-grave” approach for assessing industrial systems. “Cradle-to-

grave” begins with the gathering of raw materials from the earth to create the product and ends at

the point when all materials are returned to the earth. LCA evaluates all stages of a product’s life

from the perspective that they are interdependent, meaning that one operation leads to the next.

LCA enables the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the

product life cycle, often including impacts not considered in more traditional analyses (e.g., raw

material extraction, material transportation, ultimate product disposal, etc.).

By including the impacts throughout the product life cycle, LCA provides a comprehensive view of

the environmental aspects of the product or process and a more accurate picture of the true

environmental trade-offs in product selection. Specifically, LCA is a technique to assess the

environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service, by:

compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental releases;

evaluating

the

potential

environmental

impacts

associated

with

identified

inputs

and

releases;

interpreting the results to help you make a more informed decision.

 
• Analysis of Lifetime Ecology (LCA) Contributors: Sevket Durucan and Anna Korre The LIFETIME cluster project

Figure 0.16 LCA Stages

LCA is a technique for assessing all the inputs and outputs of a product, process, or service (Life

Cycle Inventory); assessing the associated wastes, human health and ecological burdens (Impact

Assessment); and interpreting and communicating the results of the assessment (Life Cycle

Interpretation) throughout the life cycle of the products or processes under review. The term “life

cycle” refers to the major activities in the course of the product’s life-span from its manufacture,

use, maintenance, and final disposal; including the raw material acquisition required to manufacture

the product. Figure 0.16 illustrates the possible life cycle stages that can be considered in an LCA

and the typical inputs/outputs measured.

The LCA process is a systematic, phased approach and consists of four components: goal definition

and scoping, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation as illustrated in Figure 0.17:

  • 1. Goal Definition and Scoping - Define and describe the product, process or activity. Establish the context in which the assessment is to be made and identify the boundaries and environmental effects to be reviewed for the assessment.

  • 2. Inventory Analysis - Identify and quantify energy, water and materials usage and environmental releases (e.g., air emissions, solid waste disposal, and wastewater discharge).

  • 3. Impact Assessment - Assess the human and ecological effects of energy, water, and material usage and the environmental releases identified in the inventory analysis.

  • 4. Interpretation - Evaluate the results of the inventory analysis and impact assessment to select the preferred product, process or service with a clear understanding of the uncertainty and the assumptions used to generate the results.

Interpretation) throughout the life cycle of the products or pro cesses under review. The term “life

Figure 0.17 LCA framework

Goal definition and scoping is the phase of the LCA process that defines the purpose and method of

including life cycle environmental impacts into the decision-making process. In this phase, the

following items must be determined: the type of information that is needed to add value to the

decision-making process, how accurate the results must be to add value, and how the results should

be interpreted and displayed in order to be meaningful and usable.

The LCA process can be used to determine the potential environmental impacts from any product,

process, or service. The goal definition and scoping of the LCA project will determine the time and

resources needed. The defined goal and scope will guide the entire process to ensure that the most

meaningful results are obtained. Every decision made throughout the goal definition and scoping

phase impacts either how the study will be conducted, or the relevance of the final results. The

following section identifies the decisions that must be made at the beginning of the LCA study and

the impact of these decisions on the LCA process.

A life cycle inventory (LCI) is a process of quantifying energy and raw material requirements,

atmospheric emissions, waterborne emissions, solid wastes, and other releases for the entire life

cycle of a product, process, or activity.

In the life cycle inventory phase of an LCA, all relevant data is collected and organized. Without an

LCI, no basis exists to evaluate comparative environmental impacts or potential improvements. The

level of accuracy and detail of the data collected is reflected throughout the remainder of the LCA

process. Life cycle inventory analyses can be used in various ways. They can assist an organization

in comparing products or processes and considering environmental factors in material selection. In

addition, inventory analyses can be used in policy-making, by helping the government develop

regulations regarding resource use and environmental emissions.

An inventory analysis produces a list containing the quantities of pollutants released to the

environment and the amount of energy and material consumed. The results can be segregated by life

cycle stage, by media (air, water, land), by specific processes, or any combination thereof.

In 1993, EPA published a guidance document entitled Life-Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines

and Principles. In 1995, EPA published Guidelines for Assessing the Quality of Life-Cycle

Inventory Analysis. The combination of these two guidance documents provides the framework for

performing an inventory analysis and assessing the quality of the data used and the results. The two

documents define the following steps of a life cycle inventory:

• develop a flow diagram of the processes being evaluated

• develop a data collection plan

• collect data

• evaluate and report results

Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) is the third phase of Life Cycle Assessment as described in

ISO 14042 and further outlined with examples in ISO TR 14047. The purpose of LCIA is to assess

a product system’s Life Cycle Inventory to better understand its environmental significance. It also

provides information for the interpretation phase.

The LCIA phase provides a system-wide perspective of environmental and resource issues for

product system. It assigns Life Cycle Inventory results via characterization to impact categories.

Characterization of emissions, resources extractions and land use means the aggregation by

adequate factors of different types of substances or other interventions in a selected number of

environmental issues, or "impact categories" such as resource depletion, climate change,

acidification or human toxicity. For each impact category the indicators are selected and the

category indicator results are calculated. The collection of these results provides information on the

environmental impact of the resource use and emissions associated with the product system. The

general framework of the LCIA phase is composed of several mandatory elements that convert LCI

results to indicator results. In addition, there are optional elements. The following steps comprise a

life cycle impact assessment:

  • 1. Selection and Definition of Impact Categories - identifying relevant environmental impact categories (e.g., global warming, acidification, terrestrial toxicity).

  • 2. Classification - assigning LCI results to the impact categories (e.g., classifying CO 2 emissions to global warming).

  • 3. Characterisation - modelling LCI impacts within impact categories using science-based conversion factors. (e.g., modelling the potential impact of CO 2 and methane on global warming).

  • 4. Normalisation - expressing potential impacts in ways that can be compared (e.g. comparing the global warming impact of CO 2 and methane for the two options).

5.

Grouping - sorting or ranking the indicators (e.g. sorting the indicators by location: local,

regional, and global).

  • 6. Weighting - emphasising the most important potential impacts.

  • 7. Evaluating and Reporting LCIA Results - gaining a better understanding of the reliability of the LCIA results.

The impacts of the different categories have consequences on the environment and human welfare

on different spatial scales. This has nothing to do with the importance of the categories, but with a

need of spatial differentiation within the fate and exposure for some impact categories. Since

economic processes are spread worldwide, local impacts have a global extension as well. The

climate change and the stratospheric ozone depletion are phenomena that affect the whole planet. In

principle, this holds true also for the extraction of abiotic and biotic resources. However, not all

regions of the world have the same need of all resources. Acidification, nitrifications and

photochemical oxidant formation are generally caused by pollutants whose residence time in the

atmosphere permits a continental dispersion. The impact categories human and ecotoxicity can be

considered to have a regional dimension. Depending on the characteristics of the pollutant and the

medium where it is emitted, fate can be considered continental or local. Finally the impacts caused

by photo-oxidant formation and land use are totally dependent on the local situation, meteorological

conditions and land characteristics. The need for spatial differentiation in the fate and exposure

analysis in different impact categories is illustrated in Figure 0.18.

5. Grouping - sorting or ranking the indicators (e.g. sorting the indicators by location: local, regional,

Figure 0.18 Impact categories considered in LCIA

The use of models is necessary to derive the characterisation factors. The applicability of the

characterization factors depends on the accuracy, validity and characteristics of the models used.

For most LCA studies no models are needed because existing impact categories, indicators and

characterization factors will be selected from available sources. As can be seen in Figure 0.19

models reflect the cause-effect chain (environmental mechanism) of an impact category by

describing the relationship between the LCI results, indicators and if possible category endpoint(s),

i.e. the receptors that are damaged. For each impact category, the following procedure is proposed

in ISO 14042:

Identification of the category endpoint(s).

Definition of the indicator for given category endpoint(s).

Identification of appropriate LCI results that can be assigned to the impact category, taking

into account the chosen indicator and identified category endpoint(s).

Identification of the model and the characterization factors.

This procedure facilitates an adequate inventory analysis and the identification of the scientific and

technical validity, assumptions, value choices and the degree of accuracy of the model. The

resulting indicators may vary in precision among impact categories due to the differences between

the model and the corresponding environmental mechanism. The use of simplifying assumptions

and available scientific knowledge influences the accuracy of the indicators.

Figure 0.19 The indicator concept according to ISO 14042 Life cycle interpretation is a systematic technique

Figure 0.19 The indicator concept according to ISO 14042

Life cycle interpretation is a systematic technique to identify, quantify, check, and evaluate

information from the results of the life cycle inventory (LCI) and the life cycle impact assessment

(LCIA), and communicate them effectively. Life cycle interpretation is the last phase of the LCA

process. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has defined the following two

objectives of life cycle interpretation:

1. Analyse results, reach conclusions, explain limitations and provide recommendations based

on the findings of the preceding phases of the LCA and to report the results of the life cycle

interpretation in a transparent manner.

2. Provide a readily understandable, complete, and consistent presentation of the results of an

LCA study, in accordance with the goal and scope of the study.

Mining Life Cycle Modelling: Cluster Project LICYMIN

Introduction

LICYMIN was designed as a minerals production LCA system, functioning on the basis of a cradle-

to-gate principle. The objective was to include all production, processing and waste handling

activities that usually take place around a mine site. These activities would normally be under the

jurisdiction of the mine operator, who would in turn be responsible for the life cycle impact credits

and burdens. Figure 0.20 illustrates the unit processes that have been included in the design of the

LICYMIN life cycle inventory, and indicates the flow of materials and emissions accounted for in

the inventory.

Figure 0.19 The indicator concept according to ISO 14042 Life cycle interpretation is a systematic technique

Figure 0.20 The mining life cycle impact assessment system.

The LCA database design was such that all inputs and outputs can be coded at the highest level of

detail that is likely to be available to the site operators so that the environmental impacts can be

accounted for each compartment they are found in and can be traced back to the unit processes that

they stem from. The added benefit of this approach is that it enables the apportionment of the

environmental burdens per product when more than one is produced – for example different metal

concentrates. This is a significant improvement over the LCA studies carried out on the basis of

generic data where the aggregation of processes, and therefore impacts, limits the ability to

differentiate and credit the different unit processes with the corresponding environmental impacts.

The LICYMIN inventory database was coded using the flexible object relational database model,

which allows for the modification and update of unit processes without disturbing the overall LCA

model structure.

Mining methods are broadly categorised as surface and underground methods, depending, to a great

extent, on the deposit type and depth. Based mainly on the deposit geometry and the support

criteria used, the technology – therefore the number of specialised production operations and the

equipment used in each method – varies significantly. Figure 0.21 presents a general overview of

the industrial operations involved in surface and underground mining. In the same manner, and

depending on the ore type, mineral composition and grade, the technology applied and the

equipment used in ore processing varies significantly. Consequently, the nature, volume, treatment

and disposal of the waste generated through these unit operations may not be the same.

(a) Surface Mining (b) Underground Mining
(a) Surface Mining
(b) Underground Mining

Figure 0.21 Generalised mining methods, systems and operation options for Surface and

Underground mining in metal ore production

During model development, it was noted that an LCIA that honours the spatial and temporal

dimensions of the environmental impacts of mining operations as a whole, and of the system

components individually, should provide the user with the option to include the detailed information

available at the operational level in the industry. For this purpose, the LICYMIN life cycle

inventory database was designed to represent in detail the sub-systems that comprise the mining

processes described in Figure 0.20. The operations, activities and sub-activities within each sub-

system have been represented at the highest level of detail relevant for the LCA (Figure 0.22). For

example, in the case of an open pit mine production loading operation using a rope shovel, the

inventory data available would include energy supply, power rating of the shovel, the capital and

operating costs of the equipment as inputs and rock (mineral) type and volume produced, discharges

to the atmosphere such as PM10, and gaseous emissions together with composition and quantities

as outputs.

The LICYMIN inventory

The LICYMIN life cycle inventory was developed using Oracle 9i Enterprise Edition. The object-

relational database consists of forty-four object types, forming twenty eight object tables. These

object tables were divided into five groups according to their function:

  • 1. Mineral Extraction Group

Production

Engineering services

Environmental impacts

  • 2. Mineral Processing Group

  • 3. Waste Handling and Remediation Group

  • 4. Electrical Supply Source Group

  • 5. Life Cycle Impact Assessment Group

The LICYMIN inventory The LICYMIN life cycle inventory was developed using Oracle 9i Enterprise Edition. The

Figure 0.22 Ore and waste rock excavation sub-activity details coded in the LICYMIN LCA

inventory.

Object tables in groups one, two and three are interconnected to carry out a cradle-to-gate LCA

study on a mine site or may be used independently to carry out a specific LCA study which ensures

traceability in the system. Groups four and five provide information on environmental impacts due

to the use of a particular electricity source and the LCA impact categories, respectively; both groups

are widely used by groups one to three. Figure 0.23 shows an example of object table from the

LICYMIN database, illustrating the total suspended particles object table within the environmental

impacts sub-group.

Figure 0.23 Total suspended particles object table (PM 10) within the minerals extraction group under the

Figure 0.23 Total suspended particles object table (PM10) within the minerals extraction group

under the environmental impacts sub-group.

The interaction between groups one to three, and groups four and five is achieved through the use of

sub-programs written in Oracle PL/SQL or the so called member functions. These member

functions carry out four types of computations for non-monitored or non-recorded environmental

emissions, outputs to downstream unit processes, life cycle impacts due to electricity consumption,

and the life cycle impacts of the sub-system in question. The member functions included in the

mineral extraction group object tables are designed to calculate:

• Particulate matter less than ten microns (PM10) due to traffic on unpaved roads, drilling,

primary crushing, conveying, stockpiling and blasting.

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) due to traffic on unpaved roads, drilling, primary

crushing, conveying, stockpiling and blasting.

• Nitrogen monoxide (NO), carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons, benzene, PM10

and sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) due to combustion engines.

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and ammonia (NH 3 )

due to blasting.

Surface and underground mining solid waste volume and mineral composition.

Feed grade (product).

The member functions listed above allow the LCA practitioner to specify conditions when

estimating a particular emission, or use default values stored together with the factors in the

environmental impact object tables.

The LICYMIN model allocation and characterisation

In deciding the allocation of the life cycle impacts for the minerals production process, few

important considerations have been taken into account in the design of the LICYMIN system.

Mining operations are of a complex nature, involving the multi-use or cascade use of many unit

processes. These processes require multiple inputs and produce multiple outputs, and involve both

open-loop and close-loop recycling. A faithful representation of these complex links between

activities and sub-activities was achieved through the object-relational model developed. The model

uses a set of applications and links such that data complexity is maintained, complicated

relationships are supported and communication at the highest level of detail is ensured. However,

representing the mining system at such a high level of detail has its inherent problems:

1.

Many sub-activities may occur at the same time;

  • 2. It may not be possible to acquire sufficient data as inputs and environmental burdens for each sub-activity; and

  • 3. It may not be possible to calculate and assign inputs and environmental burdens to each sub- activity.

To overcome these problems, a further clustering of sub-activities may be necessary, which could

provide a meaningful set of inputs and burdens to characterise the (sub)system. The clustering has

the advantage of identifying all activities that should be taken into account and grouping them in a

coherent manner. For example, preproduction and production operations should be considered when

clustering the underground mining system, and for production operations, the development work

and ore excavation activities should be accounted for. It is then reasonable to assume that the

drilling sub-activity will take place in all these cases. Furthermore, depending on the mining

method used, the drilling sub-activity may take place more than once during the development work.

The next step following the allocation process is the LCA characterisation. All impact categories

are defined at midpoint level on the basis that this is the “best-practice” for impact assessment. The

impact factors stored in the LCA database cover several time horizons, scales and a wide range of

compartments; for example:

  • - the factors that characterise climate change gases cover three time horizons: 500, 100 and 20 years;

  • - five indicators are used to characterise ecotoxic releases – fresh water aquatic ecotoxicity, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, fresh water sediment ecotoxicity, marine sediment ecotoxicity and terrestrial ecotoxicity. All of these indicators are evaluated for five different compartments: air, fresh water, seawater, industrial soils and agricultural soils;

  • - the factors that characterise human toxic releases also have five indicators in five different compartments, and are evaluated for five time horizons: infinity at global scale, 500, 100, 20 and infinity at continental scale. Figure 0.24 shows the details of the Human Toxicity Object Table.

1. Many sub-activities may occur at the same time; 2. It may not be possible to

Figure 0.24 Human Toxicity object table.

LICYMIN model implementation at Bakonyi Bauxitbánya kft

The Bakonyi Bauxitbánya Kft. (Bakony Bauxite Mines Ltd.) is the only active bauxite mining

company in Hungary. The company’s activities (exploration and exploitation of bauxite) cover an

area of about 150×75 km 2 in the northwest of Hungary. The annual production of about 3 Mt of the

70s and 80s decreased to annual levels below 1 Mt in recent years. Some 6 Mt are left in various

individual and relatively small occurrences.

At the time of model implementation, there were three underground mines and four open-pits in

operation. The recently developed underground mine, and a pair of completed open pits, were

selected for data collection and analysis using the LICYMIN model. The Bakonyoszlop open pit

mined two small bauxite lenses situated close to one another, using a shared dump area for

overburden. After mining, the whole area was reshaped and re-cultivated. The second operation that

was used in the model implementation was the Halimba II-DNY underground, mine which is a new

planned development and was used as a case study to validate the LICYMIN model and make

predictive calculations and scenario analysis.

The data collected on energy and materials from mining operations were collated as the LCA

technology matrix. The main objective of the technology matrix was to describe the economic flows

per unit process. Once the economic inputs and outputs were in tabular form, each was followed

individually until they were attributed to their corresponding environmental interventions. A detail

of the technology matrix for the Halimba II-DNY underground mine is shown in Figure 0.25 for a

projected production of 1,250 tonnes per day.

area of about 150×75 km in the northwest of Hungary. The a nnual production of about

Figure 0.25 Detail of the technology matrix for the Halimba II-DNY underground bauxite mine.

The member functions coded in the LICYMIN model were used to calculate the environmental

emissions and outputs to downstream unit processes as explained before. Figure 0.26 and Figure

0.27 present two examples of the outputs calculated for the solid waste produced and the estimated

gaseous emissions released from diesel combustion in the Bakonyoslop mine. Finally, the combined

effect of all emissions in each impact category was calculated through the life cycle impact

assessment group member functions. Figure 0.28 presents the acidification impact category results

for the same mine. As illustrated in the acidifying air releases table, it is possible to attribute the

environmental impact calculated to each and every sub-activity and output produced/emitted, and

trace it back to the specific unit process(es) that generate them.

effect of all emissions in each impact categor y was calculated through the life cycle impact

Figure 0.26 Solid waste produced for the Bakonyoszlop bauxite mine.

effect of all emissions in each impact categor y was calculated through the life cycle impact

Figure 0.27 Gaseous emissions from diesel combustion for Bakonyoszlop mine.

Figure 0.28 Acidification life cycle impact assess ment results for the Bakonyoszlop mine. Finally, the results

Figure 0.28 Acidification life cycle impact assessment results for the Bakonyoszlop mine.

Finally, the results were normalised at the mid-point level on the basis of the Western Europe 1995

levels. Figure 0.29 illustrates the projected results for the Halimba II-DNY underground mine until

the planned end of the mining operations in 2009.

The climate change impacts calculated are solely due to the blasting agents used in the operations.

In terms of eutrophication effects, the highest proportion in this category is due to the nitrogen

oxide produced from blasting, occasionally accounting for more than 80% of the total impact in this

category. Similarly, acidification is also mainly influenced by the blasting fumes air emissions.

It is worthwhile noting the negative scores in the photo-oxidant formation category, particularly for

the surface activities, which are due to the NO production from diesel combustion that induces a

negative impact (positive environmental contribution). In the case of underground operations, these

negative impacts are eroded by the positive blasting fume impacts that dominate the photo-

oxidising air releases (NO 2 and CO). Another interesting consideration is that the greatest

proportion of the human toxicity effects are due to the PM10 releases that dominate this category

over the blasting and diesel emissions which only account for a very small proportion (less than

1%) of the impacts. Finally, the authors feel that the current method used in accounting for the

depletion of abiotic resources is inadequate for the purposes of LCA in minerals extraction.

However, this was also included in this study to cover for all baseline categories defined in the ISO

14040.

Figure 0.29 Projected normalised life cycle impact asse ssment category results for the Halimba II- DNY

Figure 0.29 Projected normalised life cycle impact assessment category results for the Halimba II-

DNY underground mine.

Acknowledgements

The LCA model presented in this report was developed through a European Commission funded

research project, Contract No: G1RD-CT-2000-00162. The authors wish to thank the Commission,

their industrial research partners, and the engineering staff of Bakonyi Bauxitbánya Kft. in

particular, for their valuable contributions to the project elements described here.

Predictive models for deterioration of structures - alternative principles of Lifecon methods

Contributor: Asko Sarja

Alternative models

Three types of degradation models are described in detail, including some examples of application.

These models are:

Statistical degradation models

RILEM TC130 CSL models

Reference Structure model

Characteristic properties of these models are as follows:

Statistical degradation models are based on physical and chemical laws of thermodynamics,

and thus have a strong theoretical base. They include parameters, which have to be

determined with specific laboratory or field tests. Therefore some equipment and personnel

requirements exist for the users. The application of statistical "Duracrete" method raises

need for a statistically sufficient number of tests. Statistical reliability method can be

directly applied with these models.

RILEM TC 130 CLS models are based on parameters, which are available from the mix

design of concrete. The asset of these models is the availability of the values from the

documentation of the concrete mix design and of the structural design.

Reference structure model is based on statistical treatment of the degradation process and

condition of real reference structures, which are in similar conditions and own similar

durability properties with the actual objects. This method is suited in the case of a large

network of objects, for example bridges. It can be combined with Markovian Chain method

in the classification and statistical control of the condition of structures.

Because of the openness principle of Lifecon LMS, users can select the best suited models for them.

It is sure, that there exist also a lot of other suited models, and new models are under development.

They can be used in Lifecon LMS after a careful validation of the suitability and reliability. Special

attention has to be paid to the compatibility of the entire chain of the procedure of reliability

calculations.

Statistical degradation models [Lifecon D3.2]

Statistical degradation models include the mathematical modelling of corrosion induction due to

carbonation and chloride ingress, corrosion propagation, frost (internal damage and surface scaling)

and alkali-aggregate reaction. Models are presented on a semi-probabilistic and a full-probabilistic

level. Semi-probabilistic models only include parameters obtainable throughout structure

investigations, without making use of default material and environmental data. Full-probabilistic

models are applicable for service life design purposes and for existing objects, including the effect

of environmental parameters. For each full-probabilistic model a parameter study was performed in

order to classify environmental data.

The application of the models for real structures is outlined. The objects of the case studies have

been assessed in order to obtain input data for calculations on residual service life. Each degradation

mechanism will be treated separately hereby demonstrating:

possible methods to assess concrete structures

the sources for necessary input data

approach used in durability design

application of models for existing structures

the precision of the applied models

necessary assumptions due to lack of available data

possible method to update data gained from investigations throughout condition assessment

default values for input data

output of the calculations

The use of full-probabilistic models for the calibration of the Markov Chain approach is described.

RILEM TC 130 CSL models [Lifecon D2.1]

RILEM TC 130 CSL degradation models include a set of selected calculation models consisting of

parameters, which are known from mix design and other material properties and ordinary tests.

Therefore these models are usually easy to apply also in cases when no advanced laboratories and

equipment are available. The following degradation processes are included in the RILEM TC 130

CSL models:

Corrosion due to chloride penetration

Corrosion due to carbonation

Mechanical abrasion

Salt weathering

Surface deterioration

Frost attack

Degradation affects either the concrete or the steel or both. Usually degradation takes place on the

surface zone of concrete or steel, gradually destroying the material. The main structural effects of

degradation in concrete and steel are the following:

Loss of concrete leading to reduced cross-sectional area of the concrete.

Corrosion of reinforcement leading to reduced cross-sectional area of steel bars. Corrosion

may occur

  • a) at cracks

  • b) at all steel surfaces, assuming that the corrosion products are able to leach out

through the pores of the concrete (general corrosion in wet conditions).

Splitting and spalling of the concrete cover due to general corrosion of reinforcement,

leading to a reduced cross-sectional area of the concrete, to a reduced bond between

concrete and reinforcement and to visual unfitness.

Reference structure models [Lifecon D2.2]

Reference structure degradation prediction is aimed for the use in cases, when the network of

objects (e.g. bridges) is so large in number that a sample of them can be selected for a follow-up

testing, and these experiences can be used for describing the degradation process of the entire

population. The reference structure models are of two types: 1) surface damage and 2) crack

damage models. Degradation factors such as frost damage, corrosion of reinforcement, carbonation

and chloride penetration may have combined effects that may be of great importance to the service

life of a structure. By traditional prediction methods of service life these combined effects are

usually ignored. However in computer simulation they can be considered without great theoretical

problems. The progress of the depth of carbonation or the depth of critical chloride content is

promoted by both the frost-salt scaling of a concrete surface and the internal frost damage of

concrete. The internal frost damage is evaluated using the theory of critical degree of saturation.

The internal damage is evaluated as the reduction of the dynamic E-modulus of concrete.

The condition state (or damage index) of a structure is evaluated using the scale 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. This

scale is also used throughout the bridge management system.

The degradation models for both surface damage and crack damage have been programmed on

Excel worksheets. The surface damage models describe normal degradation processes on the

surfaces of reinforced concrete structures combining the effects of frost-salt attack, internal frost

damage attack, carbonation, chloride ingress and corrosion of reinforcement. The crack damage

models emulate the processes of depassivation and corrosion at a crack of a concrete structure.

All management systems that include a prediction module, such as Lifecon LMS, need reliable

environmental load data. In Lifecon deliverable D4.2 the relevant systematic and requirements for

quantitative classification of environmental loading onto structures, as well as sources of

environmental exposure data are given. Lifecon D4.2, chapter 6 contains instructions and guidelines

for how to characterise the environmental loads on concrete structures on object and network level.

However, these guidelines have to be validated (and possibly adjusted) before they finally can be

used in the LMS. In this report the results from the practical validation are summarised. The EN

206-1 system and the standard prEN 13013 have been tested out on the chosen objects and

compared with detailed environmental characterisation of the same objects using the available data

and methods for environmental characterisation. Such studies have been undertaken in five

countries (Norway, Sweden, Germany, Finland and United Kingdom) to develop the needed

national annexes for a proper implementation of EN206-1 across Europe.

Strategies and methodologies for developing the quantitative environmental classification system

for concrete are given. Those are, firstly, comparative case studies using the new European standard

-“EN 206-1 Concrete” and detailed environmental characterisation of the same objects, and

secondly, a more theoretical classification based upon parametric sensitivity analysis of the

complex Duracrete damage functions under various set conditions. In this way the determining

factors are singled out and classified. Such classification systematic is needed to enable sound

prediction of service lives and maintenance intervals both on object and network level. This in turn

is a necessary prerequisite for change of current reactive practise into a pro-active life-cycle based

maintenance management.

Environmental load parameters [Lifecon D4.1]

The first and general approach to generate data on the degradation agents affecting concrete

infrastructures ought to be through utilisation of the climate and weather data normally measured at

meteorological sites. This data has to be processed, adapted and modelled to fit into the degradation

models. A summary of the needed environmental data is presented in Table 0.1.

Table 0.1 Environmental data for degradation modelling.

Deterioration

RH

Temp.

CO 2

Precipi-

Wind

Radia-

Chloride

Freeze

[SO 2 ]

[O 3 ]

mechanism

tation

tion

Conc.

-thaw

cycles

 

Reinforced concrete

 

Carbonation

                   

induced corrosion

X

(X)

X

X

X

Chloride induced

                   

corrosion

X

X

X

X

Propagation of

                   

corrosion

X

X

X

X

Alkali-aggregate

   

reaction

 

No model

Frost attack

                   

internal/scaling

(X)

X

X

(X)

(X)

(X)

X

 

Supplementary materials (Dose-response functions)

 

Galvanised

                   

steel/zink coating

X

X

X

X

X

Coil coated steel

X

X

 

X

       

X

 

Sealants/bitumen

 

No function

 

Polymers

 

No function

 

Aluminium

     

X

   

X

 

X

X

Quantitative classification of environmental loads [Lifecon D4.2]

Object level

The different components are exposed in different ways and different amounts, due to orientation,

sheltering, sun/shadow, distance from “source” for exposure, and more, and all this have to be taken

into account.

A step-wise characterisation of the environmental parameters onto the surface of the structure is as

follows:

  • 1. Choose object

  • 2. Divide the structure/construction into components with different expected Categories of Location (due to orientation, sheltering

...

).

Use either the EOTA system [D4.2 Annexes] or

the height classification system [Table 5 in D4.2].

  • 3. Attain EN206-1 exposure classes to the various components/parts of the construction

  • 4. Adjust for the effect of sheltering, etc. on driving rain and deposition on other agents to the structure by calculation of CR, CT, O and W [Chapter 5.6.1 in D4.2].

  • a. Temperature. Preferably, if available, time series for a long period (>10 years). Main information is average temperature for summer and winter conditions, max/min and average monthly temperature. Surface temperature can be calculated from the following equation:

a. Temperature. Preferably, if available, time series for a long peri od (>10 years). Main information
  • b. Moisture. Preferably, if available, time series for a long period (>10 years). Main information is average annual precipitation and monthly number of days with rain > 0.1mm and rain >2.5mm. Monthly or seasonal relative humidity.

  • c. Wind. Preferably, if available, time series for a long period (>10 years). Main information is wind rose showing frequencies of wind speed and direction.

  • 6. Check correlation or relevance for meteorological data for the object.

    • a. From some (2-4) nearby stations – any significant difference in meteorological data?

    • b. Distance from meteorological station.

    • c. Height above sea level. Normally the average temperature decreases 0.6-0.7º C per 100
      m.

    • d. Sunny/shadowed areas (for instance of valleys). A difference of 0.5-1º C in air temperature may be expected.

    • e. Topography – differences in wind speed and direction.

  • 7. Calculation of spell index and wall spell index and driving rain [D4.2 annexes].

  • For the various EN206-1 classified parts of the structure:

    • 8. Characterisation of RH

    • 9. Characterisation of moisture: Total time with moisture comes from: time with rain + condensation + high RH

      • 10. Characterisation of temperature profiles on construction

      • 11. Characterisation of chloride, either from sea-salt from Cole models/mapping authorities for land transported sea-salt, ref example from Germany, or from deicing salts-formula Cr = 1000(-9.56+0.52SF +0.38SL+0.14FD-0.20ID)/w (Average amount of de-icing salt for each application incident [g/m²]).

      • 12. Characterisation of pollutants like SO 2 , O 3 , H + and CO 2 . Contact national (and local) ICP Modelling and Mapping groups concerning already mapped information. Contact points for all European countries are given on web-page http://www.rivm.nl/cce/. Find available environmental data from national or local authorities.

    Network level - regional level

    On regional level the mapping and classification is related to the objects location. Necessary input is

    meteorological and other environmental information. These guidelines will await the proper

    characterisation on object level and choice of appropriate parameters for network level.

    GIS-based quantification of environmental load parameters [Lifecon D4.3]

    All countries have extensive meteorological networks that can provide the necessary meteorological

    data on all levels, either as point measurements or as models on network level for the area in

    question. Meteorological data can be shown as maps showing the common meteorological

    parameters (i.e. average temperature and precipitation), or specifically derived parameters may be

    generated from the time series of the basic parameter.

    The measuring, testing and evaluation of air quality are assuming growing importance in developed

    countries as elements of a comprehensive clean air policy and geared to sustainable development. A

    huge bulk of data is therefore generated on the various geographical levels.

    In 1995 EEA (European Environment Agency) summarised the state of the air pollution-monitoring

    situation in Europe. The report provides detailed country-wise tables on networks, sites,

    compounds, reporting etc., summarised into country reports, and again summarised into summary

    tables covering all the 29 countries from which data were available.

    The costs for climatic and pollution data varies between different countries. In most cases it is quite

    expensive to get these data, especially if they have to be adjusted in some extent.

    The guideline given in Lifecon D4.2 is possible to adopt, which have been shown by the Norwegian

    and the Swedish contributions. However, the work effort is quite large, which possibly will be a

    problem in the future.

    The standard prEN 13013 (driving rain) is possible to use in most cases, but some difficulties arise

    when assessing other constructions than buildings.

    Multiple criteria decision making for selecting investment

    Principles and methods of multiple criteria decision making

    Contributor: Asko Sarja

    The Aim of the Methods

    The aim of the methods for optimisation and decision-making is to rank the alternative MR&R

    strategies, technologies and materials in order of preference, which is measured by means of the

    generic requirements: human requirements, lifetime economy, lifetime ecology and cultural criteria.

    These optimisations and decisions are made at different levels of management:

    Network level

    Object level

    Module, Component, Detail and Material levels

    Following three different methods for requirements analysis, optimisation and decision-making are

     

    presented:

    Multi Attribute Decision Aid (MADA)

    Quality Function Deployment (QFD) method

    Risk Analysis

    Multi Attribute Decision Aid (MADA)

    MADA is a methodology that is able to rank the alternatives in order of preference (in Lifecon LMS

    preference is measured by means of human requirements, lifetime economy, lifetime ecology and

    cultural criteria).

    The decision maker can decide at different phases of maintenance planning:

    Network level: Among all the objects of the stock, which one(s) is (are) identified as having

    priority for intervention?

    Object level: Which part(s) of the object is (are) identified as having priority (e.g. during

    condition assessment)?

    Module, Component, Detail and Material levels: what are the best solutions to keep or

    upgrade the level of requirements in performance?

    As an example, once identified the need of intervention on an object (by means of the condition

    assessment of the stock of objects), various actions (strategies for object management) are possible:

    No action

    Maintenance solutions

    Repair solutions

    Restoration solutions

    Rehabilitation solutions

    Modernisation solutions

    Demolition and new construction

    Framework for identifying and explaining the six-step-procedure of MADA in Lifecon LMS is

    1

    - Alternatives / O bjectives

     

    W hat do we

    want to com pare ?

       
    2 - Attributes / C riteria W hat are the decision criteria that allow us to
    2
    - Attributes / C riteria
    W hat are the decision criteria that allow us to com pare
    the alternatives ?
    W eights assessm ent
    Veto thresholds
    R elative im portance of
    the criteria
    1st alternative rem oving
    3 - Alternative assessm ent
    V alue of each (rem aining) alternative for each
    (rem aining) criteria
    4 - M ulti-attribute D ecision Aid
    S election of the m ethodology and application
    G eneric
    Sim plified
    Type of criteria
    G radual decision
    (Pseudo-criteria)
    Binary decision
    (True criteria)
    Thresholds definition
    Additive
    C opeland
    Electre III
    w
    eigthing
    5
    - R esults
    R anking / S orting of the "best" alternative
    or the "best com prom ise"
    6
    - Sensitivity analysis
     

    "M easurem ent" of the influence of sm all variations of choice or input data on final results

    Figure 0.1 MADA Flow-chart

    Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

    In short, the QFD method means building of a matrix between Requirements (=Whats) and

    Performance Properties or Technical Specifications (=Hows). Usually the Performance Properties

    are serving only as a link between Requirements and Technical Specifications, which is the reason

    why the Performance Properties are often not treated with QFD method. Additionally weighting

    factors of Requirements and Technical Specifications as well as correlations between Requirements

    and Technical Specifications are identified and determined numerically. In practical planning and

    design the application shall be limited into few key Requirements and key Specifications in order to

    maintain good control of variables and in order not to spend too much effort for secondary factors.

    QFD can be used for interpreting any Requirements into Specifications, which can be either

    Performance Properties or Technical Specifications. Thus QFD can serve as an optimising or

    selective linking tool between Requirements, Performance Properties and Technical Specifications.

    It can be used both at product development, at design of individual civil infrastructures or buildings,

    and at maintenance and repair planning. Fundamental objectives of QFD are:

    Identification of functional Requirements of owner, user and society

    Interpreting and aggregating functional Requirements first into Performance Properties and

    then into Technical Specifications of the structures

    Optimising the Technical Specifications and/or Performance Properties in comparison to

    Requirements

    Selection between different design and repair alternatives

    The alternatives and possibilities for application in QFD methodology are the same as described

    above for MADA. QFD is most suited for the numerical analysis of requirements and their weights,

    which always is the first phase of QFD. QFD is always applied in numerical analysis, but it can be

    combined with non-numerical evaluations and rankings between alternatives, like repair strategies,

    actions and technologies and materials.

    Risk Analysis

    The main objectives of Lifecon risk assessment and control are:

    to make facility owner aware of the risks in Lifecon extent (the four generic requirement

    classes)

    to form a solid framework and base for risk-based decision-making

    to give guidelines how to use the Lifecon risk approach in decision-making process

    In short the Lifecon risk assessment and control procedure can be described with the following four

    steps:

    • 1. Identification of adverse incidents

    • 2. Analysis of the identified adverse incidents

    deductively (downwards), in order to find causes (e.g. using fault tree analysis)

    inductively (upwards), in order to find consequences (e.g. using event tree analysis)

    • 3. Quantitative risk analysis

    • 4. Risk based decision-making (and continuous updating of risk database)

    The steps 1, 2 and 4 are always performed if risk analysis is used, forming qualitative risk analysis.

    The step 3 is only performed if qualitative risk analysis is not enough for decision-making and if

    quantification is possible.

    A very important feature in the procedure is the continuance. Management of concrete

    infrastructures is a continuous process and new experience gained every day. The same applies to

    risk management. The steps described above form Lifecon risk management loop that is

    continuously maintained and updated, with strict documentation.

    In Lifecon the consequences are divided in four main categories, which are

    human conditions (usability, safety, health, comfort)

    culture (local building traditions, local ways of living, local working environments,

    aesthetics, architectural styles and trends, imago)

    economy (construction costs, MR&R)

    ecology

    The four main categories are further divided into sub-categories, to make the inductive part (event

    tree analysis) of the risk analysis easier to handle.

    If the qualitative risk analysis is not enough, a quantitative risk analysis can be performed (if there

    is enough source data for the analysis). The quantitative risk analysis utilises the same fault and

    event tree skeletons that were created in the step number two. In this quantitative phase, estimations

    about probabilities of basic events are added to the fault tree part of the analysis. Likewise, in the

    event tree part of the analysis, estimations about the probabilities of the subsequent events are added

    to the event tree skeleton. Because risk is defined as the product of probability and consequence,

    mere estimation and calculation of probabilities is not enough in calculating risk. Also the

    consequences (defined in event tree analysis) must be estimated numerically. After having those

    numbers, the risk can be easily calculated.

    When the identified adverse incidents have been analysed and risks estimated (qualitatively or

    quantitatively, according to need), risk evaluation can be performed. In this phase judgements are

    made about the significance and acceptability of the risks, and finally, decisions are made on how to

    deal with the risks.

    It is recommended to use fault tree and event tree analyses in evaluation of risk, but other very

    applicable methods exist too. The logic is always the same, regardless of the chosen risk analysis

    method. The following three questions must be answered:

    What can go wrong?

    How likely is it?

    What are the consequences?

    Apart from the logics of risk analysis procedure, another fact is common to all risk analysis

    methods: strong expertise is needed and the results depend highly on how rigorously the analyses

    are performed. No shortcuts should be taken if real benefits are wanted. It should be remembered

    that a huge part of the accidents, failures and unintended events happen due to negligence, not

    ignorance. All risk analysis methods (when pertinently carried out) include brainstorming and

    prioritisation processes performed by a multi-discipline team consisting of members from different

    stakeholder groups. These people, who give "raw material" (data, opinions, estimations etc.) for risk

    analyses, must be experts with solid experience in their business. These are for example

    maintenance engineers, facility owners, statisticians, inspectors, material suppliers, etc.

    Decision making tool for multiple criteria decision making

    Contributors: Dominique Caccavelli and Flourentzos Flourentzou

    Method

    The method presented here aims to apply as appropriate multicriteria analysis complying with the

    stakes of the INVESTIMMO project. In the present case, the aim of the multicriteria analysis is to

    sort buildings according to their:

    rental housing and neighbourhood quality

    financial effectiveness

    building retrofit potential

    functional and physical disorders

    environmental impacts

    The main steps in this multicriteria process are (Roy 1985):

    • 1. Build decision criteria

    • 2. Evaluate the items according to each criterion

    • 3. Aggregate these evaluations to sort the buildings.

    Building decision criteria

    An important step in the decision process is building up a list of decision criteria. The criteria list

    should satisfy several conditions (Roy 1985). It should be exhaustive: all stakes should be

    represented. It should be non-redundant: no stake should be represented more than once. The list

    should be coherent: the criteria should be expressed in such a way that the global performance

    varies in the same direction when any one of the criteria is improved. Since even experts cannot

    give correct values or weights to qualitative data, but can easily judge equity, it is advisable to

    choose and organise the criteria in such a way that they have the same qualitative importance

    (Flourentzou 2001). Finally, the number of criteria at each decision level should not be larger than

    12, and preferably be about 7 (Schärlig 1990).

    Evaluation according to each criterion

    Once the list of criteria is established, the building can be evaluated according each factor, then to

    each criterion. The evaluation may be quantitative, resulting in a figure in euros, MJ, m², kg, etc.

    These figures can be represented on a cardinal scale. The evaluation may also be qualitative, the

    evaluation being performed using an ordinal scale. Examples of ordinal scales are: good, average

    and poor; or acceptable, uncertain and unacceptable.

    Aggregation

    The synthesis of a multicriteria analysis is a global judgment: a choice, a ranking or a sorting of the

    assessed buildings. This operation is called aggregation. There are several ways to aggregate the

    evaluations for each criterion. The most well-known multicriteria aggregation algorithms are

    described in detail in: (Brans and Vincke 1985; Schärlig 1990; Maystre, Pictet et al. 1994; Schärlig

    1996; Roy 1999). These methods however do not handle both quantitative and qualitative criteria in

    a way convenient for our purpose.

    The rule-based aggregation method presented below is in the spirit of the ElectreIV method (Roy

    1993), and this is why we call it Hermione. It holds the basics ideas of strong and weak preferences,

    indifference, and veto. It also avoids compensation of a strong disadvantage by many minor

    advantages. It is based on thresholds and percentage of colours in each class. Three main classes are

    defined; favourable or clearly acceptable (green), uncertain (yellow) and unfavourable or rejected

    (red); plus a special class (black) considered as a veto. Sub classes are also defined for a more

    detailed evaluation.

    Table 0.1 Qualitative evaluation levels

       

    G +

    Exceptional

    G

    Favourable

    Favourable

    G -

    Favourable with some minor reserve

       

    Y +

    Uncertain with positive elements

    Y

    Uncertain

    Uncertain

    Y -

    Uncertain with negative elements

       

    R +

    Unfavourable with positive elements

    R

    Unfavourable

    Unfavourable

    R -

    Unfavourable with negative element

    B

    Veto

    B

    Downgrades the global judgement to red.

    Each qualitative criterion is precisely defined with sentences describing each level. A fuzzy

    transformation is used to translate quantitative, continuous variables into the ten defined classes. A

    way to perform this transformation is described below and an example is given in Figure 0.2.

    Seven thresholds are first defined, as objectively as possible. The thresholds of clear acceptance (G)

    and clear rejection (R) should be defined first. Values between these two threshold lead to

    uncertainty. G and R could be defined from the mean µ and standard deviation σ of a gaussian

    population, for example:

    G = µ βσ

    and

    R = µ + βσ

    where β is a confidence coefficient. In non-gaussian populations, G and R could also be the

    boundaries of the first and last quantiles. The veto threshold B, if any, is fixed independently.

    G 1 G G 2 Y 1 Y 2 R 2 R R 1 1 χ
    G 1
    G
    G 2
    Y 1
    Y 2
    R 2 R
    R 1
    1
    χ
    B
    +
    G
    G -
    Y -
    Y + R -
    R +
    0
    100
    200
    300
    400
    500
    600
    700
    800
    900
    1000
    1100
    1200
    "good " way
    "bad" way

    Figure 0.2 Application of fuzzy logic to define subclasses along a cardinal scale

    The thresholds of subclasses are then calculated as follows: Divide the G-R interval into α parts

    (α>2). The first and last two parts are the fuzzy zones. The larger α is, the narrower are these

    zones. α = 5/2 will give three equal yellow subclasses

    If the quality decreases with increasing value (Figure 0.2), the thresholds are calculated by:

    G

    1

    =

    G

    2

    G

    2

    =

    (

    2

    α

    )

    1 G

    +

    R

    2

    α

    Y

    1

    =

    (

    α

    1

    )

    G

    +

    R

    α

    Y

    2

    =

    (

    α

    1

    )

    R

    +

    G

    α

    R

    1

    R

    2

     

    R

    +

    B

    =

    =

    (

    2

    2

    α

    )

    1 R

    +

    G

     

    2

    α

    If the quality increases with increasing value, permute R and G in the above equations.

    Table 0.2 Set of rules used for aggregation. In this table: G is the percentage of green judgment; Y

    percentage of yellow, R of red, and B percentage of vetoes. λ is a parameter controlling the

    selectivity of the method. λ=0,5 corresponds to common democratic rules.

       

    Result

     

    Rule valid as far as the result is not in an upper class

     

    = and,

    = or

       

    G +

    G=100%

       
     

    G

     

    G 4 / 3 λ ∧ R=0 B=0

     
       

    G -

    4 / 3 λ > G ≥ λ ∧ R=0 B=0

     
       

    Y +

    ( 2 / 3 λ < G < λ ∧ R=0 B=0)

     
     

    Y

    (G < 2 / 3 λ

    R=0 B=0) (G 4 / 3 λ

    R 2 / 3 λ

    B=0)

       

    Y -

    (R1 / 3 λ

    B=0) (G < 4 / 3 λ ∧ R2 / 3 λ

    B=0)

       

    R +

    (R2 / 3 λ

    B=0)

     

    R