기관회원 [로그인]
소속기관에서 받은 아이디, 비밀번호를 입력해 주세요.
개인회원 [로그인]

비회원 구매시 입력하신 핸드폰번호를 입력해 주세요.
본인 인증 후 구매내역을 확인하실 수 있습니다.

회원가입
서지반출
석고보드 건식벽체를 이용한 가변형 공동주택의 전과정 $CO_2$ 배출량 및 경제성 평가
[STEP1]서지반출 형식 선택
파일형식
@
서지도구
SNS
기타
[STEP2]서지반출 정보 선택
  • 제목
  • URL
돌아가기
확인
취소
  • 석고보드 건식벽체를 이용한 가변형 공동주택의 전과정 $CO_2$ 배출량 및 경제성 평가
저자명
하성균,태성호,신성우,김경래,이종선,한상현,이진원,Ha. Sung-Kyun,Tae. Sung-Ho,Shin. Sung-Woo,Kim. Kyung-Rai,Lee. Jong-Sun,Han. Sang-Hyun,Rhee. Jin-Won
간행물명
大韓建築學會論文集 : Journal of the architectural institute of Korea : Structure & construction / 構造系
권/호정보
2011년|27권 10호|pp.145-152 (8 pages)
발행정보
대한건축학회
파일정보
정기간행물|
PDF텍스트
주제분야
기타
이 논문은 한국과학기술정보연구원과 논문 연계를 통해 무료로 제공되는 원문입니다.
서지반출

기타언어초록

Recently driven by the ease of remodeling and increase of lifespan and performances required of apartment houses, demands for plaster board drywall with outstanding flexibility are growing, and the importance of their assessment of environmental load is rising. In this study, $CO_2$ generated during the life cycle of a building($LCCO_2$) and its economic efficiency were evaluated for the assessment of the environmental load and cost of buildings that used plaster board drywall. Typical concrete bearing wall structure for apartment building was set as case 1, and comparison subjects were developed as case 2, case 3 and case 4 based on the ratio of plaster board drywall on top of case 1. Structural safety of each building to be assessed and the legal incentives by the use of variable type wall were considered. In addition, both for life cycle $CO_2$ emission and economic efficiency, life cycle assessments were conducted by stages including construction stage, operation/maintenance stage and demolition/waste stage. A set of data including construction material quantity, amount of energy usage, repair rate and repair period etc which are required in each stage of assessment were utilized for both $CO_2$ assessment and economic efficiency. As a result, in case of flat-type, the life cycle $CO_2$ reduction rates of cases 2, 3 and 4 compare to case1 were 1.0%, 4.5% and 5.4% respectively, and in the assessment of cost, the reduction rates compare to case1 were -0.01%, 5.8% and 6.0% respectively.