English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 16973/19260 (88%)
Visitors : 7637377      Online Users : 61
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.cnu.edu.tw/handle/310902800/32004


    標題: 以生命週期評估應用於建築物門窗之研究
    The Windows Investigation for the building by Life Cycle Assessment
    作者: 陳啓發
    貢獻者: 環境資源管理系
    楊英賢
    關鍵字: 生命週期
    Life Cycle Assessment
    日期: 2018
    上傳時間: 2019-02-27 16:51:41 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 未來具有環保概念與節省能源的建築物為建築界新主流,本文擬以產品生命週期評估(Life Cycle Assessment)方法,探討建築物生命週期各階段之環境衝擊,透過生命週期盤查分析(Inventory Analysis)據以建立資料庫,以Eco-indicator 99與Impact 2002+評價方法,模擬不同材料替代之環境效益與生態效益,並輔以進行建築物之門窗(木材、鋁材、不銹鋼材、塑鋼材)進行個案實證,選定南部地區4層鋼筋混凝土結構透天厝民宅為評估對象個案,研究範圍包含建材生產與建造施工階段,以50年的建築物使用壽命推估,探討建材其生命週期各階段之能耗與環境友善性。研究結果主要包含四種材料之碳足跡與環境衝擊評估比較,門窗原料模擬材料替代模式之環境效益。分別為:1. 以鋁材最耗能,不銹鋼材次之,木材最為節能。2. 碳足跡結果之高低依序為鋁材23.72 KgCO2-Eq.,其次不銹鋼為5.69 KgCO2-Eq.,再其次聚氯乙烯為3.31 KgCO2-Eq.及木材0.03 KgCO2-Eq.為最小。3. 四種材料之Eco-indicator 99評估,人類健康損害評估以鋁材門窗材料為最高,其次為聚氯乙烯,木材為最友善的;生態系統品質以不鏽鋼材料最高,其次為鋁材;資源耗用以不鏽鋼最大,其次為鋁材,木材相對節省資源;單一得點以鋁材最高,其次為不鏽鋼與聚氯乙烯,木材相對是環境最友善。4. Impact 2002+損壞評估,人體健康以鋁材門窗最高;生態系統品質損害以不鏽鋼門窗較高;資源消耗用以鋁材門窗為最高; 單一得點以鋁材門窗最高,其次為聚氯乙烯,再其次為不鏽鋼,木材為最小。
    The building will be a new mainstream concept on the environmental protection and energy-saving issues for the construction industry in the future. This paper focus on environmental issue of the building design by Life Cycle Assessment. The methodology is available to conduct by carbon footprint, Eco-indicator 99 and Impact 2002+ in this study. The case study was carried out for the four-story reinforced concrete structure in the southern area of Taiwan. The simulation performed to evaluate the environmental benefits for the four materials (wood, aluminum, stainless steel, and plastic) that applied on the doors and windows of buildings. Concerning Life cycle assessment (LCA) scope included the material production and construction stage, and assume 50-year life span was used to explore the environmental impacts for the building case. The results mainly include the comparison of the carbon footprint, environmental efficiency and simulating materials substitution scenarios as following:1. The aluminum is the most energy-consuming, followed by the stainless steel; the wood is more efficiency on energy issues.2. The carbon footprint results are in the order of 23.72 KgCO2-Eq. for aluminum, followed by 5.69 KgCO2-Eq. for stainless steel, and 3.31 KgCO2-Eq. for PVC and 0.03 KgCO2-Eq. for wood.3. Eco-indicator 99 results, human health damage with Al aluminum materials as the highest, followed by PVC, wood is the most friendly; ecosystem quality is the highest in stainless steel, followed by aluminum; resource consumption is the highest in stainless steel, followed by aluminum, and the wood is relatively resource-saving. The environmental impact is the most single score of aluminum, the second is stainless steel and polyvinyl chloride, and the wood is the most environmentally friendly.4. Impact 2002+ damage results, human health is highest with aluminum material; ecosystem quality is higher with stainless steel; resource consumption is highest for aluminum material; The single score is highest for the aluminum window, followed by PVC, followed by stainless steel, wood is minimal.
    Appears in Collections:[環境資源管理系(所)] 博碩士論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML81View/Open


    All items in CNU IR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback