EN JÄMFÖRELSE MELLAN TEGEL- OCH SEDUMTAK UTIFRÅN ETT MILJÖ- OCH KOSTNADSPERSPEKTIV
Detta är en Kandidat-uppsats från Jönköping University/JTH, Byggnadsteknik och belysningsvetenskap; Jönköping University/JTH, Byggnadsteknik och belysningsvetenskap
Sammanfattning: Purpose: The housing demand remains high in Sweden and according to Boverket (2017) approximately 600 000 homes need to be built from 2017 to 2025. In order to make this a value-creating investment, the focus should be on trying to meet sustainable social, economic and environmental goals. The life cycle perspective should be the starting point for analyzing buildings. Analyzes such as LCA and LCC can be good tools for examining buildings from an environmental and cost perspective. These analyzes can be used to provide a broader basis for decision making in the future. The analyzes can also increase the likelihood of meeting the aforementioned social, economic and environmental goals. The aim of the study is to investigate which roof type that performs best from an environmental and a cost perspective between the ceramic roof tiles and sedum roof. The goal is also to provide a basis for companies and customers in the construction industry for decision making. The research questions in the study are as following; How does ceramic roof tiles and sedum roofs perform from an environmental perspective? What does the cost of ceramic roof tiles and sedum roofs look like during construction versus their entire service life? What does a comparison of both roof types look like based on the above analyses? Method: To reach the goal, the methods literature studies, document reviews and interviews has been used. These have then been supplemented with a life cycle analysis (LCA), a life cycle cost analysis (LCC) and a multi-criteria analysis (MKA). Findings: From an environmental perspective, the sedum roof had lower carbon dioxide emissions and used primary energy than the ceramic roof tiles, in contrast, the ceramic roof tiles performed better with the emissions that affects the ozone layer. From a cost perspective, the sedum roof performed better at the time of construction while the ceramic roof tiles performed better when considering the whole life cycle. When comparing the roof types with the help of weightings from an expert group in Europe, the ceramic roof tiles performed better and was ranked number one among the alternatives. Implications: Conclusions drawn from the study is that sedum roof performs better in a life cycle analysis and thus have a less negative impact on the environment. Sedum roofs are cheaper compared to ceramic roof tiles in the first two years, then the ceramic roof tiles become cheaper until the year 30. From year 30 until demolition, the sedum roofs are cheaper and finally after demolition the ceramic roof tiles becomes the cheapest. In a multicriteria analysis, the ceramic roof tiles perform a bit better from an environmental and cost perspective. Limitations: The study is limited to only two different roof types and doesn´t consider the differences required for the construction under the roofing felt. Transport is not included in the calculations while the working hours to climb the roof for maintenance of the sedum roof and the costs for repairs to irregular damage to the ceramic roof tiles are also not included in the lifecycle cost analysis. Keywords: Lifecycle Analysis, LCA, Lifecycle Cost Analysis, LCC, Multicriteria Analysis, MKA, COPRAS, Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)