Introduction
Building wall partition systems, often regarded quite simply as the background of architectural form, and also compared to concrete and steel their environmental impact may disregarded. A life cycle assessment (LCA) provides a quantifiable approach to understanding these impacts with insights that drive informed decisions towards eco-efficiency and sustainability.
This report investigates the subtle environmental considerations of various types of wall partition systems which are drywall, hollow concrete and clay brick for our case. While conducting that assignment, several components of options have been disregarded at the expense of simplicity.
Scope and Goals
In sustainable school architecture, the importance of interior wall partitions as a subsystem should be considered because not only do they divide spaces, but they also enhance the acoustic and thermal comfort of educational areas, and relatively influence the building’s environmental impact. While examining various options for this study, wall options are defined as clay brick, drywall and hollow concrete block. To begin with system boundaries have been defined for clear explanation and as well as determining the goal and scope.
Energy use and emissions considered in system boundary during the material processing, fabrication, and on-site construction phases of the wall’s life cycle. The main objective of the present analysis is to ascertain the carbon footprint of different wall partition systems. By the setting of clear boundaries, and by focusing our assessment on the key environmental indicators of Energy, CO2, SO2, and NOx emissions, we would be aiming to identify the greener option between the three alternatives for the interior wall partitions in a school setting.
Design Options
This analysis seeks to establish the level of carbon emission resulting from each choice of materials. The urgency that is associated with climate change means that educational institutions need to promote discretion in the choices of materials used and reduce the associated carbon footprints as long as suitable conditions are provided such as material supply, sound and thermal insulation and so on because these options may serve to different needs.
Life Cycle Timeline
It is assumed that expected life span for educational buildings 60 years for the modern schools (Pachta, Vasiliki, et al. 2022). However, according to National Center for Education Statistics the average age of the main instructional building(s) of public schools is 40 years. Thus, 50-year life span is determined for our system and also it is assumed that these interior wall partitions’ lifespans will be terminated according to the educational building’s lifespan.
Life Cycle Inventory and Analysis
In general, material selections call for a holistic outlook. Drywall stands out as the most eco-conscious choice with respect to the assessed criteria. However, other factors such as structural requirements, indoor environmental quality, availability of local materials, financial implications and reusability or recycling it at end of life should be considered before applicable in making a final decision.
Energy consumption
CO2 emissions
NOx emissions
SO2 emissions
MDCM – Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
In conclusion, the detailed analysis using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) has provided a clear comparative perspective on the environmental and energy impacts of different building materials. The lifecycle energy consumption and emissions data prove that Drywall (Option 2) emerges as the more sustainable and eco-friendly choice compared to other materials evaluated. It closely aligns with global environmental goals, aiming to reduce greenhouse gases and mitigate climate change effects with the least CO2 and NOx emissions. On the other hand, Hollow Concrete Block (Option 3), despite its strength and durability, poses a significant environmental burden.
References
[1] Pachta, Vasiliki; Giourou, Vasiliki Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of a Historic and a Modern School Building, Located in the City of Naoussa, Greece. Sustainability; Basel Vol. 14, Iss. 7, (2022): 4216. DOI:10.3390/su14074216
[2] National Center for Education Statistics Functional Age of Schools: Condition and Plans for Improvement, Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999 (ed.gov)