En miljo?ja?mfo?relse av traditionellt stambyte kontra relining av tappvattenro?r
Med hja?lp av livscykelanalys
This study was a final thesis, for the bachelor program in civil engineering at theUniversity of Uppsala, which was made on behalf of Riksbyggen in Uppsala. Acomparative study of two stain renovation methods; tradition pipe replacement andrelining was done with an environmental perspective. A simplified life cycleassessment (LCA) was done according to the International Organization ofStandardization (ISO) with the LCA tool Eco-indicator 99, in order to be estimate theimpact on the environment. LCA is a method that follows a product or a system?from the cradle to the grave?, which means that all the environmental impact over alifetime is considered.The work was executed by using a stairway with nine apartments in a house called?Uppsala Hus 9? as a reference object, which was provided by Riksbyggen. Thehouse was a typical house from the so-called ?Miljonprogram? and was restoredwith traditionally pipe replacement four years earlier. Interviews were done with the companies VBEByggproduktion AB and Novada that works with traditionally pipe replacement andrelining, in order to receive information about material consumption, equipment,transports etcetera for both methods. Where some information was impossible toobtain, assumptions were made.The processes considered within the study were extraction and production ofmaterials, energy use of machines, transports, recycling and waste. Theenvironmental categories that the study estimated were taken from Eco-indicator 99and the categories were ?human health?, ?ecosystem quality? and ?resources?.The conclusion of the study was that the traditionally pipe replacement had a greaterimpact on the environment than the relining. This was mainly due to the fact that theproduction of material with the traditionally pipe replacement was about 950 timeslarger than with the relining. The transport with the traditionally pipe replacementwas about three times bigger than the transport with relining. The result of thevrecycling was larger with the traditionally pipe replacement than with the reliningwhich had none recycling at all. The energy use of machines was slightly bigger withrelining than with traditionally pipe replacement.Some of the data was unreliable, which required us to make some assumptions. Thisresulted in some of the values being too high or too low. An example could havebeen that the use of machines for both of the methods was too high. Meanwhile, itshould not affect the result too much, due to the fact that the use of machines forboth methods almost cancelled each other out.