This study was a final thesis, for the bachelor program in civil engineering at the
University of Uppsala, which was made on behalf of Riksbyggen in Uppsala. A
comparative study of two stain renovation methods; tradition pipe replacement and
relining was done with an environmental perspective. A simplified life cycle
assessment (LCA) was done according to the International Organization of
Standardization (ISO) with the LCA tool Eco-indicator 99, in order to be estimate the
impact 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 a
lifetime 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. The
house was a typical house from the so-called “Miljonprogram” and was restored
with traditionally pipe replacem
ent four years earlier. Interviews were done with the companies VBE
Byggproduktion AB and Novada that works with traditionally pipe replacement and
relining, in order to receive information about material consumption, equipment,
transports etcetera for both methods. Where some information was impossible to
obtain, assumptions were made.
The processes considered within the study were extraction and production of
materials, energy use of machines, transports, recycling and waste. The
environmental categories that the study estimated were taken from Eco-indicator 99
and the categories were “human health”, “ecosystem quality” and “resources”.
The conclusion of the study was that the traditionally pipe replacement had a greater
impact on the environment than the relining. This was mainly due to the fact that the
production of material with the traditionally pipe replacement was about 950 times
larger than with the relining. The transport with the traditionally pipe replacement
was about three times bigger than the transport with relining. The result of the
recycling was larger with the traditionally pipe replacement than with the relining
which had none recycling at all. The energy use of machines was slightly bigger with
relining than with traditionally pipe replacement.
Some of the data was unreliable, which required us to make some assumptions. This
resulted in some of the values being too high or too low. An example could have
been that the use of machines for both of the methods was too high. Meanwhile, it
should not affect the result too much, due to the fact that the use of machines for
both methods almost cancelled each other out.
2012. , 66 p.