{"id":26580,"date":"2026-02-06T23:16:11","date_gmt":"2026-02-06T23:16:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=26580"},"modified":"2026-02-09T20:33:23","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T20:33:23","slug":"lifecycle-analysis","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=26580","title":{"rendered":"LifeCycle Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a>
LCA Goal and Scope Boundary<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

LCI Material<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For the analysis, we focus only on reinforced concrete (RC), as it is the structural material of the critical systems. We aim to build a table that provides, for 1\u202fm\u00b3 of RC, the exact composition of the concrete (cement, fly ash, coarse and fine aggregates, reinforcement steel) along with the associated environmental flows for each component: energy in kWh, CO\u2082, NOx, and SO\u2082 emissions in kg.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This table forms the basis for the LCA calculations in our model, allowing us to quantify the environmental and economic impacts of maintenance interventions. It is constructed using Swiss and European LCA data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The final table for 1\u202fm\u00b3 of reinforced concrete (RC) is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Material<\/td>Scope<\/td>Quantities<\/td>Energy<\/td>CO2<\/td>NOX<\/td>SO2<\/td><\/tr>
Cement<\/td>RC<\/td>350<\/td>0.0032<\/td>0.00082<\/td>0.00018<\/td>0.00006<\/td><\/tr>
Fly Ash<\/td>RC<\/td>56<\/td>0<\/td>0.0000025<\/td>0<\/td>0.00078<\/td><\/tr>
Coarse Aggregates<\/td>RC<\/td>1127<\/td>0.0000035<\/td>0.000016<\/td>0.0000018<\/td>0.0000018<\/td><\/tr>
Fine Aggregates<\/td>RC<\/td>831<\/td>0.0000023<\/td>0.0000053<\/td>0.000009<\/td>0.000009<\/td><\/tr>
Reinforcement<\/td>RC<\/td>135<\/td>2.43<\/td>0.225<\/td>0.00071<\/td>0.00185<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Design parameters<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To better understand how design choices influence maintenance, we introduce design parameters into the model. We arbitrarily decided to vary the thickness of the four systems examined by + to – 20% of their base value. This structural parameter is relevant because it acts on two levels: on the one hand, greater thickness directly increases the total volume of concrete required for construction, and therefore the quantities of materials involved; on the other hand, it modifies behavior over time, because a thicker element is generally more resistant to mechanical and environmental stresses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Spacing effect<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To translate this second effect into the model, we introduce an intervention spacing coefficient. The principle is as follows: when the actual thickness exceeds a reference thickness, interventions become less frequent; conversely, a lower thickness results in more frequent interventions. We use a coefficient proportional to the ratio between the reference thickness and the actual thickness. This choice is deliberately simplified and arbitrary, but it allows us to consistently represent the fact that structural oversizing improves durability and spaces out maintenance operations, without introducing a degradation model that is too complex for the scale of the study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Volume for each maintenance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Volume for each maintenance<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Depends on the maintenance type<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, not all interventions involve the same amount of work. We therefore assume that each type of intervention corresponds to the replacement of a given fraction of the concrete volume, regardless of the system concerned. Three coefficients are defined: 0.1 for inspections with minor repairs (VI), representing very localized actions; 0.4 for surface repairs (SR), which affect a significant but partial portion of the element; and 0.8 for heavy rehabilitation (DR), which corresponds to major structural interventions. These values do not describe a specific case, but rather a realistic gradation between light, intermediate, and heavy maintenance, which makes it possible to easily link the maintenance strategy to the volumes of materials actually used during the life cycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Depends on the system<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The nuclear containment building concrete volume is calculated through splitting the building into 2 parts a cylinder and half a sphere and depending on the diameter of the hollow sphere the volume of the concrete will change. For our current design diameter of the nuclear containment building is 37 m with a total height of 59 m. The total Volume for the concrete structure is 6858 m\u00b3. As the whole structure is made only of concrete and no masonry the volume of the concrete is directly proportional to the dimensions of the structure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The parking structure is made up of a ground and 3 floors, with dimensions 17.6 m by 48 m, and a slab thickness 250 mm, the parking structure has been designed for the capacity of 106 cars, which is suitable for the current size of the nuclear containment plant. After calculations the total concrete volume of the slabs is 844.8 m\u00b3, with each concrete slab with a volume of about 211.2 m\u00b3. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The connection between the parking and the shuttle tunnel is through a sidewalk that is 50m while the second part of the sidewalk which is 200m connects the support building with the containment building. The width of the sidewalk is 1.8m and the concrete thickness is 12cm. The total concrete volume for the sidewalk is 54 m\u00b3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The last system is the tunnel system with the concrete lining of the tunnel being 0.3m thick and the total cross-section area for it is 3.6 m\u00b2. While the length of the tunnel is 700 m, connect the parking to the control building. Over this total length of the tunnel the total concrete volume corresponds to 2,520 m\u00b3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Economic Cost<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In our model, we translate the environmental impacts calculated from the LCA into economic costs in order to integrate a monetary dimension into the system’s performance. This step allows us to compare not only disruptions and physical impacts (energy, emissions), but also their overall economic consequences on the infrastructure life cycle, in line with the Swiss context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To do this, we use unit cost coefficients associated with each environmental flow:<\/p>\n\n\n\n