Sustainability criteria for the selection of water supply pipeline

Figures & data

Table 1. The main literature references about LCA studies applicated to WDS

References	Aims	Objectives	Research method
Lundie et al. (2004)	Life cycle assessment for a large water and wastewater system	Comparison on the sustainability estimates (referring to the environmental, economic and social contexts) in different scenarios	LCA with a Cradle to grave approach
Stokes and Horvath (2009)	Life cycle assessment for a water supply system in reference to Energy and Air Emission Effects	Identify a replicable analysis methodologies for US water services	LCA with a Cradle to grave approach
Godskesen et al. (2011)	Comparison between the impacts associated to the processes involved in a three water system types	Verify if the LCA method, referring to some impact categories (such as greenhouse effect, toxicity, nutrient enrichment and acidification) is a valid tool to planning operation in water system	LCA with a Cradle to grave approach
Del Borghi et al. (2013)	Impact analysis of a potable water supply systems, excluding the use stage	Analysis type based on the environmental label request (as Environmental Product Declaration—EPD).	LCA with a Cradle to grave approach
D’Ercole et al. (2014)	Identify the system performance and the possible strategies to increase the sustainability level in a water system	Quantify the resources flows (input and output), linked to the necessary metabolic turnover, to guarantee the optimal operating conditions of the water system	Urban metabolic model based on LCA application with cradle to grave type
Hasegawa et al. (2016)	Optimize the replacement strategies of water systems to reduce the life cycle cost and greenhouse gas emissions	Impact evaluations in the context of continuous long-term depopulation	A synthesis of LCA and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) methodologies
Dennison et al. (1999)	LCA analysis of a potable water pipes	Identify the phases where environmental impacts may be reduced	LCA with a Cradle to grave approach
Du et al. (2012)	Evaluate the economic-environment performances for six commonly pipes material used for water and wastewater	Impact analysis, in terms of global warming potential (GWP), referring to the pipe production, transport, installation, and use phases. The consequent objective is to examine the effective validity of currently used pipe size selection criteria in a GWP analysis	Using the LCA impact estimate as based to create a monetized values through an emission penalty parameter
Barjoveanu et al. (2014)	Demonstrate the LCA study validity to describe, compare and predict the environmental performance of water systems	Quantification of environmental impacts before and after the tap system, referring to a Romanian water system	LCA with a Cradle to grave approach

Table 2. Data organization for the LCA application: LCI summary

Material	Weight Pipeline (Kg/m)	Thickness Pipeline (mm)	Raw Materials	Processes
Reinforced cement concrete	310	70	Portland cement, concrete, reinforcing steel	Radial compression, painting
Unreinforced concrete	100	76	Portland cement, concrete	Radial compression, painting
Gres	100	76	Clay, chamotte, water	Extrusion, drying, painting
Fiber cement	5	40	Portland cement, polimeric fiber, cellulose fiber	Hatschek forming, painting
Steel	39	5	Steel, bitumen, PE, PP, PU, zinc coat, cement mortar	Fusion welding, painting
Iron cast	68	6	Iron cast, cement mortar, zinc coat	Fusion welding, spinning, painting
PE	11.5	12	PE, additives	Extrusion, polymerization, painting
PP	26	28	PP, additives	Co-extrusion, painting
PRFV	12	7	Glass fiber reinforced plastic, inert filler, liner	Centrifugation, polymerization, painting
PVC	10	6	PVC, additives	Extrusion, painting

Table 3. Normalization factors for the damage categories of impact 2002+ method related to Western Europe (Humbert et al., 2005)

Damage categories	Normalization factor referring to Q2.2 version	Unit
Human Health	0.0071	Disability-Adjusted Life Year DALY/point
Ecosystem Quality	13,700	Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species over a certain amount of m2 during a certain amount of year PDF.m2.y/point
Climate Change	9,950	kg CO2 into air/point
Resources	152,000	MJ/point

Table 4. Pipe classification with characteristic values. ISEC for different types of materials referring to ND 300 mm

Material	Outside diameter (mm)	Thickness (mm)	E (N/mm^2)	J (cm^4)	ISEC
Reinforced cement concrete	465	70.0	10,000	36,544	0.72
Unreinforced concrete	432	65.0	10,000	35,661	0.70
Gres	370	76.0	40,000	37,406	2.95
Fiber cement	334	40.0	18,000	28,262	1.01
Steel	324	5.0	206,000	29,845	12.14
Iron cast	326	5.7	105,000	5,708	1.18
PE	315	21.1	880	11,359	0.02
PP	328	28.6	1,200	22,701	0.05
PRFV	330	7.0	15,000	6,918	0.20
PVC	355	6.2	2,940	6, 177	0.03

Figure 1. ISEC index values referring to the test materials.

Table 5. Overall impact evaluation for test pipeline. LCIA summary

Material	Human health	Ecosystem quality	Climate change	Resources	Impact Assessment
Reinforced cement concrete	0.00085	0.00009	0.00096	0.00060	0.00251
Unreinforced concrete	0.00035	0.00004	0.00043	0.00038	0.00120
Gres	0.00037	0.00004	0.00040	0.00041	0.00122
Fiber cement	0.00040	0.00005	0.00049	0.00050	0.00144
Steel	0.00232	0.00039	0.00109	0.00106	0.00486
Iron cast	0.00010	0.00001	0.00016	0.00018	0.00046
PE	0.00069	0.00007	0.00081	0.00117	0.00274
PP	0.00097	0.00008	0.00107	0.00148	0.00360
PRFV	0.00358	0.00012	0.00110	0.00104	0.00583
PVC	0.00326	0.00006	0.00088	0.00110	0.00531

Figure 2. Comparison of the normalized impacts associated with the 10 test materials, using impact 2002+ damage category.

Figure 3. Impact assessment of test materials using the LCA method.

Table 6. ISSI value for the test materials

Material	ISEC	LCA	ISSI
Reinforced cement concrete	0.72	0.00251	0.0018
Unreinforced concrete	0.70	0.00120	0.0008
Gres	2.95	0.00122	0.0036
Fiber cement	1.01	0.00144	0.0014
Steel	12.14	0.00486	0.0595
Iron cast	1.18	0.00046	0.0006
PE	0.02	0.00274	0.0001
PP	0.05	0.00360	0.0002
PRFV	0.20	0.00583	0.0012
PVC	0.03	0.00531	0.0021

Figure 4. ISSI associated to the test material.

Lundie, S. , Peters, G. M. , & Beavis, P. C. (2004). Life cycle assessment for sustainable metropolitan water systems planning. Environment Sciences Technological Letters , 38(13), 3465–3473. doi:10.1021/es034206m

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stokes, J. R. , & Horvath, A. (2009). Energy and air emission effects of water supply. Environ. Sci. Technol , 43(8), 2680–2687.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Godskesen, B. , Zambrano, K. C. , Trautner, A. , Johansen, N. B. , Thiesson, L. , Andersen, L. , … Albrechtsen, H. J. (2011). Life cycle assessment of three water systems in Copenhagen—A management tool of the future. Water Science Technology Journal , 63(3), 565–572. doi:10.2166/wst.2011.258

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Del Borghi, A. , Strazza, C. , Gallo, M. , Messineo, S. , & Naso, M. (2013). Water supply and sustainability: Life cycle assessment of water collection, treatment and distribution service. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment , 18(5), 1158–1168. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0549-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

D’Ercole, M. , Ugarelli, M. R. , & Di Federico, V. (2014). Modello Metabolico Urbano come strumento per l’analisi di sostenibilità dei sistemi idrici urbani: Il caso studio di Reggio Emilia . 8th Technical. Conf. of Rete Italiana LCA, Firenze, Italy, 19–20 June 2014.

 Google Scholar

Hasegawa, K. , Arai, Y. , Koizumi, A. , & Inakazu, T. (2016). Life cycle assessment of a water distribution system in a context of depopulation . In Conference: IWA World Water Congress and Exhibition 2016, Brisbane, Australia, October 2016.

 Google Scholar

Dennison, F. J. , Azapagic, A. , Clift, R. , & Colbourne, J. S. (1999). Life cycle assessment: Comparing strategic options for the mains infrastructure—Part I. Water Science Technology Journal , 39(10–11), 315–319. doi:10.2166/wst.1999.0673

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Du, F. , Woods, G. J. , Kang, D. , Lansey, K. E. , & Arnold, R. G. (2012). Life cycle analysis for water and wastewater pipe materials. Journal of Environmental Engineering , 139(5), 703–711. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000638

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Barjoveanu, G. , Comandaru, I. M. , Rodriguez-Garcia, G. , Hospido, A. , & Teodosiu, C. (2014). Evaluation of water services system through LCA. A case study for Iasi City. Romania. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment , 19(2), 449–462. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0635-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Humbert, S. , Margni, M. , & Jolliet, O. (2005). IMPACT 2002+: User guide . Draft for version, 2.

 Google Scholar