Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10
Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal
Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman Research article Selection of emission factor standards for

Research article

Selection of emission factor standards for estimating emissions from diesel construction equipment in building construction in the Australian context

Guomin Zhang a , * , Malindu Sandanayake a , Sujeeva Setunge a , Chunqing Li a , Jun Fang b

a School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, Australia b School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China

article info

Article history:

Received 2 June 2016 Received in revised form 23 August 2016 Accepted 15 October 2016 Available online xxx

Keywords:

Emission factors

Construction equipment

Environmental emissions

Australia

Buildings

abstract

Emissions from equipment usage and transportation at the construction stage are classi ed as the direct emissions which include both greenhouse gas (GHG) and non-GHG emissions due to partial combustion of fuel. Unavailability of a reliable and complete inventory restricts an accurate emission evaluation on construction work. The study attempts to review emission factor standards readily available worldwide for estimating emissions from construction equipment. Emission factors published by United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Australian National Greenhouse Accounts (AUS NGA), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and European Environmental Agency (EEA) are critically reviewed to identify their strengths and weaknesses. A selection process based on the avail- ability and applicability is then developed to help identify the most suitable emission factor standards for estimating emissions from construction equipment in the Australian context. A case study indicates that a fuel based emission factor is more suitable for GHG emission estimation and a time based emission factor is more appropriate for estimation of non-GHG emissions. However, the selection of emission factor standards also depends on factors like the place of analysis (country of origin), data availability and the scope of analysis. Therefore, suitable modi cations and assumptions should be incorporated in order to represent these factors.

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The sustainability perception at the construction stage of a building has been stimulated over the past few years in the eld of built environment ( Kibert, 2012 ). Minimising environmental impacts caused by construction work are one of the major aspects of achieving sustainability in building construction ( Lippiatt, 1998 ). The environmental emissions in building con- struction consist of both direct and indirect emissions ( Sandanayake et al., 2016a ). Direct emissions are described as those emissions as a result of the major process considered while indirect emissions are emissions at upstream processes of the major process ( Sandanayake et al., 2016a,b ) Diesel construction equipment is a signi cant source of emissions among these direct emissions ( Sandanayake et al., 2016b; Junnila et al., 2006 ). Quantifying these emissions is complicated due to the

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: kevin.zhang@rmit.edu.au (G. Zhang).

0301-4797/ © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

involvement of both greenhouse gas (GHG) and non-GHG emissions due to partial combustion of fuel. An ideal mathematical model to estimate emissions from construction equipment should be able to address both GHG and non-GHG emissions. However, all these emissions have seldom been consideredin emission studies focusing on building construction (Seo and Hwang, 2001; Guggemos and Horvath, 2005; Singh et al., 2011 ). One reason is that the direct emissions at the construction stage carry little signicance over the whole life cycle of a building (Junnila et al., 2006; Guggemos, 2003). The other, perhaps more important reason is the challenge in selecting inputs and suitable emission factors inventory for the mathematical model (Singh et al., 2011; Abanda et al., 2013). Nevertheless certain studies have highlighted the importance of these direct emissions due to the short term environ- mental impacts which is an immediate threat to the public (Sandanayake et al., 2016b). Therefore, the selection of inputs and emission factors remains the issue which requires meticulous consideration. Even though most of the countries have their own standards to evaluate GHG emissions, only a few developed countries have

2 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10

2

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

published emission factor standards for non-road equipment. For instance, emission standards published by United States Environ- mental Protection Agency (US EPA) ( Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam, 2009 ) and European Environmental Authority comprise of non- GHG emission factors for stationary equipment (EEA) ( EEA, 2013; IPCC, 2006; USEPA, 2002; AGGA, 2013 ). In carrying out an emis- sion study at building construction in Australia, one such limitation is a lack of comprehensive standards that provide non-GHG emis- sion factors to evaluate emissions from non-road machines and equipment. Therefore, it is important to investigate the possibility of selecting the most appropriate emission factor inventory to perform a comprehensive emission evaluation from construction equipment used at building construction. The present study aims to review the available emission factor standards to develop selection criteria for comprehensive emission estimation from construction equipment used in Australian building construction. Construction equipment refers to the non-road machines and equipment used at construction sites. The outcome of the study will be bene cial to researchers who seek to execute a complete emission study at the construction stage of a building.

2. Background - environmental impacts from diesel construction equipment

a. Emissions from diesel equipment operation

Stationary construction equipment used in building construc- tion is responsible for a number of gas and particle based emission substances due to partial combustion of fossil fuel ( Frey et al., 2010a; Lewis et al., 2009a ). Some of the gaseous emission sub- stances consist of GHG emissions such as carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and non-GHG emissions such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) and aromatic hydrocarbons (HC). Primary and secondary particulate matters (PM) are the major particle based emissions that especially affect the air quality in metropolitan areas. The air quality in several Australian metro- politan and rural areas has worsened, with reports showing the amount of ne PM has exceeded its limit ( ENVIRON, 2010 ). The exact quantity of emissions from construction equipment depends on operational parameters such as speed, engine load and fuel consumption and machine parameters such as engine type, age and usage ( Frey et al., 2010a; Abolhasani et al., 2008; Lewis et al., 2011 ). Besides, environmental parameters like air temperature and humidity also affect the composition of emissions ( ENVIRON, 2010 ). For instance, fuel with lower sulphur content tends to emit lesser SO 2 and PM compared to fuel with higher sulphur content ( A and Crankcase Emission, 2010 ).

b. Environmental impacts from diesel equipment operation

Fine particles (diameter between 2.5 and 10 mm) and very ne particles (diameter less than 2.5 mm) present the greatest health risk to respiratory system due to inhalation of these ner particles ( ENVIRON, 2010 ). Some of the health effects due to inhalation of PM involve cardiac issues, lung damage, pulmonary disease and oxidative stress ( Sandanayake et al., 2016b; ENVIRON, 2010; Hermann et al., 2007). Apart from the health effect produced by particle based pol- lutants, several other environmental impacts caused from gaseous emissions are also predominant ( Sandanayake et al., 2015, 2016b ). SO 2 emissions are the root cause for acid rains while most of the non-GHG emissions contribute to photochemical smog formation ( Sandanayake et al., 2016b ). In addition to these emissions, CO 2 is the major source for global warming potential that affects the global atmospheric temperature ( Hermann et al., 2007 ).

3. Previous emission studies on construction equipment

This section aims to summarize the previous emission studies on construction equipment. Table 2 provides a summary different emission studies on construction equipment. These ndings were obtained from a web search in Google Scholar and Web of Science under the keywords emissions from construction equipment and emissions from stationary equipment . Some studies concentrated on emissions from construction equipment while other studies included emission evaluation on construction equipment in the emission studies on buildings. Frey et al. conducted a eld study to analyse the fuel usage and emissions from construction equipment ( Frey et al., 2010b ). The results indicated that fuel based emission rates are less sensitive to engine size and load while time based emission rates are highly sensitive to engine characteristics. Lewis et al. attempted to analyse the effect of engine idling on fuel usage and CO 2 emissions ( Lewis, 2009 ), in which the relationship between the fuel usage and CO 2 emissions were extensively discussed and nally the use of a fuel based emission factor for CO 2 emissions calculations was recom- mended. A similar emission study attempted to develop and anal- yse the use of emission inventories for construction vehicles ( Lewis et al., 2009b ). The study used a Portable Emission Measurement System (PEMS) to measure emissions at site and used them in comparing emissions estimated through US EPA standards. The results indicated that non-CO 2 emission evaluation from US EPA inventory has less variation with the measured emission variations. Emission studies on buildings have used both fuel and time based models to calculate emissions from construction equip- ment. Mao et al. deployed a fuel based emission evaluation to estimate GHG emissions from construction equipment in a comparative study on measuring emissions at the construction stage of a building ( Hong et al., 2015 ). A case study on emissions during building construction in Hong Kong also used a fuel based emission model to calculate GHG emissions from construction equipment ( Yan et al., 2010 ). Another case-speci c emission study on foundation construction effectively exploited fuel and time based emission methodology to estimate GHG and non- GHG emissions from construction equipment respectively ( Sandanayake et al., 2016b ). Sihabuddin et al. used a similar time based emission factors to evaluate both GHG and non-GHG emissions from underground construction equipment due to unavailability of fuel consumption data ( Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam, 2009 ). Guggemos et al. also utilised the usage hours of the construction equipment to determine the emissions from construction equipment. Apart from these studies, several other emission studies have used fuel based emissions models and time based emission models to estimate emissions from construction equipment ( Sandanayake et al., 2016a,b; Abanda et al., 2013; Hong et al., 2015 ). The major advantage of the fuel based models is the readily available fuel consumption data while it is practically dif cult to get the usage hours of each machine for emission analysis. However past emission studies have indicated that fuel based emission factor is more suitable for CO 2 emissions evaluation while a time based emission factor is more appropriate for non-CO 2 emissions ( Frey et al., 2010a ). Moreover as observed in past studies from Table 1, the variables in fuel based models can be easily altered to meet the objectives of the researcher while time based models are similar in nature. Since GHG emissions were the major concern on most the pre- vious studies, fuel based models were more frequently used than the time based models. Thus the study aims to compare fuel and time based emission models to identify the validity of these statements and the applicability of the same in the Australian context.

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10 3

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

3

Table 1 Various emission models used in different studies to measure emissions from construction equipment.

No

Model type

Variable

Evaluation basis

Reference

1

Fuel based

Weight of fuel

GHG emissions

( Millstein and Harley, 2009; Cole, 1998 ) ( Millstein and Harley, 2009 ) ( Yan et al., 2010; Mao et al., 2013 ) ( Sandanayake et al., 2016a,b; Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam, 2009 )

2

Fuel based

Quantity and density of fuel

GHG emissions

3

Fuel based

Quantity of fuel

GHG emissions

4

Time based

Power, Usage and ef ciency

GHG/non-GHG emissions

4. Review of international emission standards

In view of investigating the applicability of various emission standards for the Australian context, seven major emission stan- dards are reviewed in the following section. The review involves a basic description followed up by a comparison of the standards to choose the most suitable for the comparative analysis. These standards are selected based on the availability, countries where machines are imported to Australia, reputation and extensiveness of the standards. With these considerations, emissions standards published by United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), European Environment Agency (EEA) in European Union, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts (AUS NGA), China, and Japan are reviewed to identify the potential advantages and disadvantages in estimating emissions from construction equipment, in order to select suitable emission standards to supplement the emission assessment in the Australian context. Each reviewed standards for emission factors are published by corresponding countries to cater their desired scope and objectives. These emission factors standards can be mainly categorised into fuel and time based emission factors. Fuel based emission factors estimate emissions based on the amount of fuel consumed, and time based emission factors estimate emissions based on the duration and the machine characteristics.

a. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) standards

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an inter- national agency which constantly undertakes assessments on cli- matic change. It is a scienti c entity and is responsible for

reviewing most recent technical and socio-economic information with regards to climatic changes ( IPCC, 2007 ). Thus factors pub- lished by IPCC are most frequently used and widely accepted across the globe. The IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas In- ventories are designed for countries to prepare and report in- ventories of greenhouse gases. Usually these GHG emissions include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). The database divides the energy sector into exploitation of primary energy sources, conversion of primary energy sources, distribution and transmission of fuels and use of fuels in stationary and mobile machines. Emission may come from either combustion, fugitive emissions or escape without combustion. Three tiers of emission standards are provided for determina- tion of GHG emissions from stationary equipment. These three tier approaches are provided based on the detailed input data avail- ability on construction machines. Tier 1 is an approximated method which estimates emissions based on a default average emission factor. Emission factors in this tier carry a lot of uncertainties. In Tier 2 approach the default emission factors are replaced by a country speci c emissions factor. Tier 3 approach requires energy models which enables manual assessment and gives a more accurate estimation of emissions. IPCC standards are widely adopted in emission studies to estimate emissions. However one drawback of this standard is the lack of details in estimation methodology for emissions from construction equipment.

b. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) standards

US EPA is a governmental agency with the responsibility of safeguarding the environment and human health. It establishes

Table 2 Summary of different studies carried out on emissions from construction and stationary equipment.

Pollution substance

Country

Area of study

Standard

Reference

CO 2 ,CO,CH 4 ,N 2 O,NO x ,SO 2 China

Emissions from household stoves Air pollutant emission factors of construction equipment Characterization of on-road vehicle emission factors Road vehicle emission factors development Long-term real-world road traf c emission factors Development of dust emission factors for fugitive emission sources

Experimental

( Zhang et al., 2000 ) ( Jung et al., 2009 ) ( Westerdahl et al., 2009 ) ( Franco et al., 2013 ) ( Hueglin et al., 2006 ) ( Cowherd et al., 1974 ) ( Ketzel et al., 2003 )

CO, NO x , THC, PM CO, carbon and PM NOx, PM, THC, CO, CO 2 NO, NO 2 , NO x , SO 2 , Dust emission

Korea

Experimental

China

Experimental

Europe

Experimental

Switzerland

Experimental

USA

Experimental

CO. NO x Denmark Particle and trace gas emission factors under urban driving conditions

Experimental

CO, NO x , VOC

Switzerland

Comparison of measured and model-calculated real-world traf c emissions

EU

( Hueglin et al., 2006; Corsmeier et al., 2005 ) ( Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam, 2009 ) ( Colberg et al., 2005; John et al., 1999 )

HC,CO,NO x ,PM,SO 2 ,CO 2 USA Methodology for estimating emissions in underground utility construction operations

US EPA

CO, NO x , VOC

Switzerland

Comparison of a road traf c emission model with emission factors

EU

HC,CO,NO x ,PM,CO 2 N/A Validation of road vehicle and traf c emission models e ( Smit et al., 2010 )

HC,CO,NO x ,PM,SO 2 ,CO HC,CO,NO x ,PM,CO HC, CO, NO x , PM

2

USA

A fuel-based assessment of off-road diesel engine emissions

US EPA

( Kean et al., 2000 )

USA

Revised estimates of construction activity and emissions

US EPA

( Millstein and Harley, 2009 )

USA

Field procedures for real-world measurements of emissions

US EPA

( Rasdorf et al., 2010 )

USA

from diesel construction vehicles Comparison of non-road diesel engine emissions data sources

US EPA

( Lewis et al., 2009a )

USA

Comprehensive eld study of fuel use and emissions of non-road diesel construction equipment

Experimental

( Frey et al., 2010a; Lewis et al., 2011 )

Austria

Emission factors for heavy-duty vehicles

Experimental

( Hausberger et al., 2003 )

2

HC,CO,NO x ,PM,CO

2

HC,CO,NO x ,PM,CO

2

NO x

4 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10

4

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

standards and undertakes assessment through various studies and research to enhance environmental protection ( Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam, 2009 ). It also takes initiative to improve public awareness by conducting various awareness programs. The emis- sion standards published by US EPA are based on engine power and model year. Furthermore, emissions from engines are classi ed into four tiers ( A and Crankcase Emission, 2010 ). Tier 1, initially implemented in 1994 for machines of power over 37 kW was reintroduced in 1998 for equipment less than 37 kW. Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards were introduced for all equipment to be phased in years 2000 e 2008 ( ENVIRON, 2010 ). Tier 4 standard was introduced in 2004 with regards to the US Clean Diesel Rule ( Bahner et al., 2007). The standard was phased for years between 2004 and 2015 which reduces PM and NO x emissions by 90%. The provided exhaust emission factor is further modi ed based on the deterio- ration, total age and practical emission conditions ( A and Crankcase Emission, 2010; Sandanayake et al., 2015 ). The US EPA standard covers emission standards for pollutants such as CO 2 , CO, NO x , PM, SO 2 and HC ( USEPA, 2002 ).

c. Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts (NGA) standards

Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts factors have been prepared for estimating greenhouse gas emissions. The responsibility of the publication is held by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Ef ciency ( AGGA, 2013 ). The default emission factors published by the Department are according to international standards and are frequently reviewed and referred to by international experts ( AGGA, 2013 ). These factors are deter- mined simultaneously with Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System (AGEIS) to maintain the consistency of all the inventories ( AGGA, 2013 ). The report provides emission factors for four different green- house gases which are Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ), Methane (CH 4 ), Nitrous Dioxide (NO 2 ) and synthetic gases (HFCs, SF 6 , CF 4 , and C 2 F 6 ). These factors are standardized in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent. The emission factors published divide emissions into three different categories as shown below.

- Direct emissions (Scope 1 emissions) - Emissions from fuel use, energy use and waste disposal etc.

- Indirect emissions (Scope 2 emissions) e Emissions from pur- chased and consumed electricity in carbon dioxide equivalent

- Various other indirect emissions (Scope 3 emissions) e Emis- sions from extraction and transportation of fuels, emissions from electricity lost in extraction and production of burned fuel.

When determining environmental emissions of construction activities these emission factors have one important advantage of division of emissions into stationary energy emissions and transport fuel emissions. It further categorises fuel combustion based on the type of fuel used, i.e., solid fuels, liquid fuels and gaseous fuels. Thus these emission factors provide a solid founda- tion for comparison of emissions from different fuel types.

d. European Environment Agency (EEA) standards

European Environment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the European Union whose task is to provide independent infor- mation about environment. The major objective of EEA is to effectively collect, analyse and distribute emission data across Europe to the interested parties ( Nelson, 1999 ). The inventory guidebook published by EEA provides emission details of several sectors such as agriculture, industrial processes, waste and natural sources. The emissions from non-road mobile sources are

Table 3 Machine characteristics according to EEA classi cation ( EEA, 2013 ).

Machine type

Fuel Used

Power range (kW)

Asphalt/concrete pavers Plate compactors/rammers Rollers Mini excavators/trenchers Excavators Cement and mortar mixers Cranes Graders/scrapers Bulldozers Loaders/backhoes Fork lifts Cement and mortar mixers

Diesel

15 e 160

Diesel

2

e

21

Diesel

2 e 390

Diesel

Diesel

Diesel

e 50 e 500 5 e 40

10

40

Diesel

Diesel

100 e 250 e

50

190

Diesel

30

e

250

Diesel

Diesel

e 20 e 100

130

10

Diesel

1 e 40

provided under industrial processes. It provides a basic description of the machinery included. Table 3 summarizes the typical construction equipment u sed in construction with their characteristics. EEA Emission standards for non-road equipment were initiated in two stages based on the engine power: Stage I implemented in 1999 and Stage II implemented from 2001 to 2004. These two standards covered almost all types of construction equipment. In 2004, Stage III and Stage IV standards were introduced from 2006 to 2013 and from 2014 respectively which involves emission factors for marine engines used in waterway vessels ( An and Sauer, 2004; Faiz et al., 1996 ). EEA suggests three approaches to estimate the emissions from construction equipment. The rst approach also called Tier 1 default approach involves calculation of emissions using the fuel consumption in source category together with a default emission factor provided by EEA. Tier 1 emission factors are categorised based on the fuel type and the source category. Tier 2 technology- dependent approach is similar to tier 1 approach, and the difference lies that the emission factors in Tier 2 undergo a further charac- terisation of the technology type. Thus this classi cation allows more comprehensive analysis. Tier 3 equipment speci c and technology strati ed approach is a method adopted from US EPA methodology which takes into account equipment characteristics in calculating the emissions.

e. Other emission standards

Chinese emission standards for non-road machines and equip- ment were developed in 2008 (DieselNet, 2015). They are jointly published by the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP) and the Standardization Administration of China (SAC). These standards are based on EU stage I and II standards for non-road construction equipment. The standards also cover a range of smaller capacity machines which pertains to US Tier 1 and Tier 2 standards. Emission standards are categorised machines up to 560 kW. Emission stan- dards for HC, CO, NO x and PM are provided in two power catego- risations of stage I/II and stage III/IV emission standards. Apart from these nationally accepted standards, local or environmental stan- dards may be available for industries which have outputs with high impacts to environment. However the emission standards for non- road machines and equipment are not well developed compared to the mobile vehicle emission standards ( DieselNet, 2015 ). Emission standards for non-road machines issued by Japan are based on 19 e 560 kW ( DieselNet, 2015 ). Emissions such as HC, CO, NO x and PM are included in these standards. Even though the standards are similar to US and EU standards they are not completely adopted from these standards. The Japanese standards categorise vehicles based on the engines manufactured between 2006-08 and 2011-16 ( DieselNet, 2015 ). Power categorisation

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10 5

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

5

Table 4 Comparison of different emission factors that can be used to evaluate emissions of construction machines and equipment.

Emission Factor

Advantages

Disadvantages

Applicability in Australia

References

 

inventory

IPCC

Tier 1

Easy computation steps Good for basic type analysis when less data is available Easy computation like earlier approach Fewer uncertainties than tier

Not comprehensive

Can be used for basic analysis Variation of emissions from different machines cannot be identi ed signi cantly

( Seo and Hwang, 2001; IPCC, 2007; Suppiah et al., 2007; Olivier and Peters, 2005; Robertson et al., 2000; Segalstad, 1998; Zabalza Bribi an et al., 2011; Chang and Kendall, 2011; Gentil et al., 2009; Fridley, 2008; Joseph et al., 2009; Reveised, 2006; Schneider and Moss, 1999; Li et al., 2001; Alcamo et al., 1995 )

factors

Contain uncertainties

 

Tier 2

Not comprehensive

 

Contain uncertainties

1

approach

 

Tier 3

Most comprehensive analysis out of the three to evaluate emissions from stationary machines Takes technology into account when calculating emissions Simple equation to determine the emissions Can be used for more comprehensive analyses Unique emission factor for each machine Easy computation steps Easy comparison of emission patterns of different equipment Covers a number of pollutant substances than others Data collection is much easier All factors are in CO 2

Time consuming More complicated in carrying out the analysis Practical dif culty in evaluation of a complicated ow of activities

Ideal for evaluation of emissions from machines use Only Greenhouse gas can be determined, which may be a drawback when construction equipment is considered

US EPA factors

Speci c data is required for analysis. Thus data collection will be dif cult Calculation is a little complicated Some conversion factors (mobile machines) can be country speci c

Ideal for evaluation of emissions from machinery use Comparison of different construction activities can be done effectively Emissions from electricity is not included Need to de ne the assumptions properly before the analysis Dif cult to differentiate between emissions of two

( Frey et al., 2010a; Abolhasani et al., 2008; Lewis et al., 2011; Lewis, 2009a,b; Millstein and Harley, 2009; Kean et al., 2000; Rasdorf et al., 2010; Dallmann and Harley, 2010; Frey et al., 2008; Fruergaard et al., 2009; Pokharel et al., 2002; Chowdhury et al., 2010 ) ( Fruergaard et al., 2009; Wood and Cowie, 2004; Subak et al., 1993; Russell-Smith et al.,

Australian National

Emission categorisation based on fuel type and use may not correct all the times Only covers certain greenhouse gas emissions Factors in CO 2 equivalents units sometimes make the analysis dif cult because most of emissions are in grams or joule equivalents

Greenhouse Gas

accounts

 
 

equivalents, so comparison is easier Emissions due to electricity

generation are included Easy computation steps for the formula provided Carbon content factors for fuels are provided Can be used effectively when fuel use for each activity is known Easy to compute Good for basic type analysis More comprehensive than tier

machines with same fuel use System boundary can be extended by including emissions from material production as well Analysis can be done just by knowing the fuel use of each equipment Energy of construction materials is not being

2009

)

 

EEA

Tier 1

Not comprehensive Many contain a lot of uncertainties

accounted for Can be used for basic analyses ( Kurokawa et al., 2013; Kurniawan and Khardi, 2011;

standards

 

Tier 2

Comparative better than other

 

 

Tier 3

1

approach

approaches although not as effective as tier 3 or US EPA approach Data collection can be dif cult Ideal for evaluation of

Velthof et al., 2012; Pires and Martinho, 2013; Antanasijevi c et al., 2013 )

 

Best approach to evaluate emissions from construction equipment out of the three methods Similar to US EPA approach

 

emissions from machinery use although not comprehensive like US EPA approach

divides vehicles into ve groups starting from 19 kW to 560 kW. The regulations report published by Central Environmental Council (CEC) in 2008 recommends further referring to US EPA and EEA standards for better emissions for non-road vehicles. One drawback of the standard is the lack of consideration of practical operational conditions which is crucial factor for construction equipment emissions. Moreover lack of reference of Japanese standards in worldwide applications is another limitation of adopting these standards in Australian studies.

5. Comparison of emission standards for the comparative analysis

The six emission standards reviewed are compared with each other based on several parameters before choosing the most appropriate emission standards for comparative analysis. A pub- lished report on non-road diesel engines states that the applica- bility of US and EU emissions standards to Australian sold construction equipment engines are 100% and 58% respectively

( ENVIRON, 2010 ). Moreover US, EU and IPCC standards are frequently referenced worldwide in several emission studies compared to other emission standards ( Guggemos, 2003; Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam, 2009; Guggemos and Horvath, 2006; Suppiah et al., 2007; Olivier and Peters, 2005 ). US emission stan- dards involve machines of larger range (less than 8 kW to more than 560 kW) compared to other emission standards. Although Japan's emission standards are similar to US and EU, the availability, applicability and complexity makes them not equivalent to these standards. Moreover, smaller machines are not included in Japa- nese emission standards. Nevertheless, Chinese emission standards involve standards for smaller machines but they are in reference with US standards. However their emission standard for larger engines are primarily based on EU standards ( ENVIRON, 2010 ). Since studies have shown that fuel based emission standards are more suitable for GHG emission estimation while time and ma- chine based emission standard is better for non-GHG emission evaluations. In view of all these parameters, four emission stan- dards, two fuel based emission standards: AGGA and IPCC emission

6 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10

6

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10 Fig. 1. Guideline for selecting
al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10 Fig. 1. Guideline for selecting

Fig. 1. Guideline for selecting emission factor standards for construction equipment.

standards and two time based emission standards: US and EU standards are selected for the comparative analysis. A comparison summarising the four standards with their applicability, advantages and disadvantages are shown in Table 4 . The comparison is solely based on the applicability of these emis- sion factors on evaluating emissions from non-road construction equipment.

6. Development of a selection procedure

Construction equipment predominantly emits CO 2 emissions as a GHG. Therefore herein CO 2 emissions also refer to GHG emissions and non-CO 2 emissions refer to non-GHG emissions. The emission studies reviewed in the preceding section highlight that country speci c emission factor inventory is the most precise selection to measure actual emissions from construction equipment. In absence of a country speci c emission standard, selection of the most accurate standard to conduct an in-depth emission analysis on construction equipment is critical. Since these emissions involve both CO 2 and non-CO 2 emissions, selection of emission factor standard for both pollutant substances should be included to un- dertake a comprehensive emissions study. Studies have shown that CO 2 emissions mainly depend on the fuel consumption and the composition ( Frey et al., 2010a ). Thus if accurate fuel consumption data is available, a fuel based emission factor inventory should be used to estimate CO 2 emissions from construction equipment. Accordingly, the standard published by Australian National Greenhouse Gas Accounts as a fuel based standard, is chosen to estimate greenhouse gas emissions. However for Australian context, such a standard is not available for measuring non-CO 2 emissions from construction equipment. Therefore, a selection procedure outlined in Fig. 1 can be executed to help choose the most accurate and appropriate

Therefore, a selection procedure outlined in Fig. 1 can be executed to help choose the most
Therefore, a selection procedure outlined in Fig. 1 can be executed to help choose the most

inventory for estimating emissions from construction equipment. Factors like availability of the standard, applicability of the standard in the Australian context, reputation and inclusiveness of the emission standard are taken into account when developing the selection procedure. The selection procedure is divided into stan- dards selection for CO 2 and non-CO 2 emissions. For CO 2 emissions, the selection procedure is based on availability of country speci c inventory, availability of accurate fuel consumption data and availability of fuel usage at equipment level. For non-CO 2 emissions, the selection procedure is categorised on availability of the country speci c inventory, and availability data at activity and equipment level. The selection procedure uses standards developed for different countries and regions. Therefore prior to using these emission factor standards, it is important to address the carbon content variations in fuel, geographical variations, climatic and temperature variations. However, if these standards are used to compare emis- sions from two machines at the same location, the impacts from these variations can be assumed to be neutralised.

from two machines at the same location, the impacts from these variations can be assumed to

7. Case study

a. Methodology

A study is carried out to compare the CO 2 emissions and non- CO 2 emissions from different construction equipment using the four emission factors standards. i.e., Australian Greenhouse Accounts factors, US EPA factors, IPCC Tier 1 approach and EEA approach. A case study available on eld emissions calculation on non-road diesel construction equipment was used for the comparative analysis ( Frey et al., 2010b ). The case study used a portable emission measurement system (PEMS) to measure actual emissions from construction equipment. The sensitivity of the

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10 Table

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

Table 5 Input data for the CO 2 emission comparison analysis.

7

Equipment a

Activity

Power (hp)

Tier

Model year

Displacement (l)

Use (hr)

BH 1

Load truck

88

2

2004

4.0

3.1

BH 2

Move material

88

1

1999

4.2

1.32

BH 3

Move soil

88

1

2000

4.2

1.12

BD 1

Stock pile

95

1

2002

5.0

3.83

BD 2

Stock pile

90

1

2003

3.9

1.56

EX 1

Excavate soil

254

1

2001

8.3

0.68

EX 2

Excavate soil

138

2

2003

6.4

2.65

EX 3

Move soil

93

1

1998

3.9

3.56

a BH - Backhoe, BD e Bulldozer, EX - Excavator.

system was found to be ± 10% ( Sandhu and Frey, 2013 ). For CO 2 emissions comparison, eight construction machines are used as shown in Table 5 which includes backhoes, bulldozers and exca- vators. For non-CO 2 emissions comparison in the case study, only three excavators are used (EX 1, EX 2 and EX 3) as equipment level information was only available for the excavators to be used in the comparative analysis. Several studies have stated that CO, NO x emissions carry more signi cance among non-CO 2 emissions from construction equipment ( Guggemos, 2003; Sihabuddin and Ariaratnam, 2009 ). Therefore, only CO and NO x are compared with the actual emissions as for non-GHG comparison for the case study. Emission estimation models used for the comparative analysis are discussed in fuel based and time based emission models.

b. Fuel based emission estimation models

The following equation can be deployed to estimate GHG emissions based on the fuel consumption of the equipment, using AGGA, IPCC and EEA Tier 1 standard.

Emissions ð kgs of GHG Þ ¼ Q E e

1000

(1)

Where Q is the quantity of fuel used in kL, E is the energy content factor in GJ/kL and e is the emission factor in kg/GJ. Corresponding emission factor and energy content factor values can be obtained from the IPCC report ( IPCC, 2007 ), AGGA report ( AGGA, 2013 ) and EEA report ( EEA, 2013 ). Emission estimation from EEA Tier 2 approach comprehends the following equation.

E ¼ FC j ; c * EF i ; j ; c ; t

(2)

Where, FC j,c is the fuel consumption of fuel type j for the equipment category c, EF i,j,c,t is the average emission factor for pollutant i for fuel type j for equipment category c and technol- ogy type t.

Table 6 CO 2 emissions estimated using different standards.

Machine

CO 2 emissions in kgs

 

Actual results

Aus. NGA

US EPA

IPCC Tier 1

EEA

BH1

7.2

9.02

8.15

10.3

8.87

BH2

34.16

41.71

26.45

47.66

41.06

BH3

16.94

20.69

13.12

23.63

20.36

BD1

68.94

83.89

126.36

95.85

82.57

BD2

57.98

70.29

62.67

80.31

69.18

EX1

42.16

51.22

53.94

58.53

50.42

EX2

111.3

135.20

114.31

154.48

133.07

EX3

96.12

116.96

114.98

133.64

115.12

c. Time based emission estimation models

Emissions for both GHG and non-GHG emissions can be esti- mated using the equation below.

Emissions ¼ EF * P * h * LF * N

(3)

Where: P is the rated power in hp, h is the use of equipment in hours, LF is the load factor and N is the number of equipment considered. The corresponding emission factors and the other variables for EU standards are given in EEA report ( EEA, 2013 ) and the emission factor calculation for US EPA corresponds to the following methodology.

CO 2 emission factor ð EFCO 2 Þ¼ð BSFC 453 : 6 HC Þ 44 * 0 : 87

12

(4)

BSFC is the brake speci c fuel consumption in lb/hp-hr, 453.6 is the conversion of lb to grams, 0.87 is the carbon mass fraction of diesel, (44/12) is the ratio of CO 2 mass to carbon mass and HC is the adjusted emission factor hydro carbon emissions. Emission factor for hydro carbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxide (NO x ) in g/lb-hr can be calculated using the following equation.

EF adj for HC ; CO ; NO x ¼ EF SS TAF DF

(5)

Where EF adj is the adjusted emission factor HC, TAF is transient adjustment factor and DF is the deterioration factor which can be calculated using the equation below.

DF ¼ 1 þ A * ð Age Factor Þ b

(6)

100.00% 80.00% 60.00% IPCC 40.00% US EPA EEA 20.00% AUS NGA 0.00% BH1 BH2 BH3
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
IPCC
40.00%
US EPA
EEA
20.00%
AUS NGA
0.00%
BH1 BH2 BH3 BD1 BD2 EX1 EX2 EX3
-20.00%
-40.00%
Fig. 2. Percentage of CO 2 emissions variation of different approaches with the actual.
percentage variation from actual
8 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10

8

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

Table 7 Non-CO 2 emissions from different approaches (in kgs).

Machine

EEA Tier 1

EEA Tier 3

US EPA

Actual emissions

CO

NO x

CO

NO x

CO

NO x

CO

NO x

EX1

205.61

523.18

180.39

699.39

117.22

623.75

131.71

668.68

EX2

542.69

1380.93

496.52

1126.71

287.17

929.16

361.02

976.09

EX3

469.49

1194.67

259.34

1340.64

251.99

1149.44

266.05

1677.3

A and b are constants for a given pollutant/technology type, and age factor is the fraction of median life expected. TAF value is classi ed for different equipment.

8. Results and discussions

a. CO 2 emissions comparison

CO 2 emissions were compared between the AUS NGA, IPCC Tier 1 approach, US EPA and EEA standards. The results of CO 2 emissions calculations using all the four stan- dards are tabulated in Table 6 . It is seen that none of the approaches are able to calculate the results precisely. Therefore, to understand the variations of emissions from different approaches, the deviation of emissions from actual results are graphed. The results from Fig. 2 show a uniform pattern for IPCC, EEA and AUS NGA while US EPA method shows a scattered pattern. One reasonis that US EPA assumes

a constant BSFC value which may not be correct for re ecting the

actual operation of construction equipment. This is because the fuel consumption differs according to the activity of the equipment. Therefore, using a time based emission factor to calculate CO 2 emis- sions are not as accurate as using a fuel based emission factor. The other reason is that studies have shown that CO 2 emissions depend only on the fuel consumption and the composition of the fuel (Lewis et al., 2009a). This observation can be further justied because both EEA Tier 1 and Tier 2 provide same emission factors for CO 2 emissions.

The reason for variation of emissions from fuel based emission factors

is because the study is based in USA and the carbon content of fuel is

different to that from Australia and Europe. Moreover, Tier 1 IPCC approach is a default approach which is approximate and hence shows more variation than the other two. Therefore, it is best to use a country specic fuel based emission factors for calculation of CO 2 emissions from construction equipment wherever possible. How- ever, in absence of a country specic emission it is best to use a fuel based emission factor with the proper adjustments and assumptions.

Table 7. As seen from the values, none of the emissions match the actual emissions. Therefore, the variation of emissions from the actual results is calculated to understand the percentage of devi- ation of different approaches with the actual emissions. Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 shows the CO and NO x emission deviations from the actual respectively. It is seen that US EPA results seem to be the most accurate with less deviation from the actual. Therefore, in the absence of a country speci c emission factor inventory US EPA is the most accurate inventory for non-CO 2 (non-GHG) emissions estimation. Moreover, fuel based emission factors (EEA Tier 1) overestimate the non-GHG emissions from construction equip- ment ( Lewis et al., 2009b ). These results justify the fact that non- GHG emissions are dependent on machine characteristics than the fuel characteristics ( Lewis et al., 2009b ).

9. Conclusions and suggestions

An ideal emission study at construction stage should include both CO 2 and non-CO 2 emissions because emissions from con- struction equipment involve the same due to partial combustion of fuel. Selecting the most appropriate emission factor inventory is one of the major complications that make this emission evaluation more complex. An inaccurate inventory can lead to distorted re- sults. The present study reviewed four major standards available to estimate CO 2 and non-CO 2 emissions from construction equipment.

A selection procedure is developed based on the reviewed stan-

dards and the observations obtained from the previous emission studies to select the most suitable and accurate inventory for emission estimation from construction equipment. The developed selection procedure can assist the researchers to select the most suitable emission standards for emission analysis from construc- tion equipment in Australia. A case study was used to compare the actual emissions with the estimated emissions from different approaches. The results are further used to investigate the validity and the implementation of the selection procedure developed. The results indicated that for

b.

Non-CO 2 (non-GHG) emissions comparison

both CO 2 and non-CO 2 emissions, in absence of a country speci c emission standard, the selection process suggested in the study can

Non-CO 2 emissions were compared between US EPA approach

be

utilised effectively for the Australian context. It is con rmed that

and EEA Tier 1 and Tier 3 approaches, with results shown in

CO

2 emissions mainly depend on the fuel consumption and the

50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% EX1 EX2 EX3 -10.00% percentage variation from actual
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
EX1
EX2
EX3
-10.00%
percentage variation from
actual

EEA tier 1

EEA tier 3

US EPA

Fig. 3. CO variations of different approaches with the actual.

50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% EX1 EX2 EX3 -10.00% percentage variation from actual
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
EX1
EX2
EX3
-10.00%
percentage variation from
actual

EEA tier 1

EEA tier 3

US EPA

Fig. 4. NO x variations of different approaches with the actual.

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10 9

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

9

composition. Thus if accurate fuel consumption data is available, a fuel based emission standard would be more appropriate to esti- mate CO 2 emissions from construction equipment. If Australian context is considered, the standards published by Australian Na- tional Greenhouse Accounts can be effectively used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions. The results from the case study indicate that non-CO 2 emissions depend on the machine characteristics more and therefore emission standards such as the one published by US EPA would be more appropriate for non-CO 2 emissions estimation. However, to use such an inventory, speci c information is required on equipment and activity level. The selection process developed in the study provides a basic guideline in choosing the most accurate emission factor inventory for construction equip- ment in absence of a country speci c emission standard. Future studies are encouraged on further validating the pro- cedure using various case studies and developing a separate emission factor standard for construction equipment in Australia as construction equipment demonstrates unique emission patterns.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the nancial support from Brook eld Multiplex Pty Ltd for carrying out this research project.

References

Research Report-international Institute for Applied Systems Analysis IIASA RR . An, F., Sauer, A., 2004. Comparison of passenger vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards around the world. Pew Cent. Glob. Clim. Change 25. Antanasijevi c, D.Z., et al., 2013. PM 10 emission forecasting using arti cial neural networks and genetic algorithm input variable optimization. Sci. Total Environ. 443, 511 e519 . Bahner, M.A., et al., 2007. Use of black carbon and organic carbon inventories for projections and mitigation analysis. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Inter- national Emission Inventory Conference Emission Inventories: Integration Analysis and Communications, Raleigh . Chang, B., Kendall, A., 2011. Life cycle greenhouse gas assessment of infrastructure construction for California's high-speed rail system. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 16 (6), 429 e 434 . Chowdhury, R., Apul, D., Fry, T., 2010. A life cycle based environmental impacts assessment of construction materials used in road construction. Resources Conserv. Recycl. 54 (4), 250 e 255 . Colberg, C.A., et al., 2005. Comparison of a road traf c emission model (HBEFA) with emissions derived from measurements in the Gubrist road tunnel, Switzerland. Atmos. Environ. 39 (26), 4703 e 4714 . Cole, R.J., 1998. Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the con- struction of alternative structural systems. Build. Environ. 34 (3), 335 e 348 . Corsmeier, U., et al., 2005. Comparison of measured and model-calculated real- world trafc emissions. Atmos. Environ. 39 (31), 5760 e 5775 . Cowherd, C., et al., 1974. Development of emission factors for fugitive dust sources. Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency. Dallmann, T.R., Harley, R.A., 2010. Evaluation of mobile source emission trends in the United States. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (1984 e 2012) 115 (D14) . DieselNet, 2015. Emission Standards [cited 2015 08/23]; Available from: https:// www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php . EEA, 2013. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook . ENVIRON, 2010. Cleaner Non-road Diesel Engine Project - Recommendations and Measures. NSW, Australia . Faiz, A., Weaver, C.S., Walsh, M.P., 1996. Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Stan- dards and Technologies for Controlling Emissions. World Bank Publications . Franco, V., et al., 2013. Road vehicle emission factors development: a review. Atmos. Environ. 70 (0), 84 e 97.

Hausberger, S., et al., 2003. Emission factors for heavy-duty vehicles and validation by tunnel measurements. Atmos. Environ. 37 (37), 5237 e 5245 . Hermann, B., Kroeze, C., Jawjit, W., 2007. Assessing environmental performance by combining life cycle assessment, multi-criteria analysis and environmental performance indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (18), 1787 e1796 . Hong, J., et al., 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase of a building: a case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 103, 249 e 259 . Hueglin, C., Buchmann, B., Weber, R.O., 2006. Long-term observation of real-world road trafc emission factors on a motorway in Switzerland. Atmos. Environ. 40 (20), 3696 e 3709 . IPCC, 2006. Stationary Combustion, p. 47. IPCC, 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland . John, C., et al., 1999. Comparison of emission factors for road traf c from a tunnel study (Gubrist tunnel, Switzerland) and from emission modeling. Atmos. En- viron. 33 (20), 3367 e3376 . Joseph, J., Patil, R., Gupta, S., 2009. Estimation of air pollutant emission loads from construction and operational activities of a port and harbour in Mumbai, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 159 (1 e4), 85 e 98 . Jung, S.-W., et al., 2009. A study on calculation of air pollutants emission factors for construction equipment. J. Korean Soc. Atmos. Environ. 25 (3), 188 e 195 . Junnila, S., Horvath, A., Guggemos, A., 2006. Life-cycle assessment of of ce buildings in Europe and the United States. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 12 (1), 10 e17. Kean, A.J., Sawyer, R.F., Harley, R.A., 2000. A fuel-based assessment of off-road diesel engine emissions. J. Air & Waste Manag. Assoc. 50 (11), 1929 e1939 . Ketzel, M., et al., 2003. Particle and trace gas emission factors under urban driving conditions in Copenhagen based on street and roof-level observations. Atmos. Environ. 37 (20), 2735 e 2749 . Kibert, C.J., 2012. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery:

31 e38 .

10 G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1 e 10

10

G. Zhang et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e10

Recycl. 45 (3), 210 e 225 . Pires, A., Martinho, G., 2013. Life cycle assessment of a waste lubricant oil management system. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18 (1), 102 e112 . Pokharel, S.S., Bishop, G.A., Stedman, D.H., 2002. An on-road motor vehicle emissions inventory for Denver: an ef cient alternative to modeling. Atmos. Environ. 36 (33), 5177 e 5184 . Rasdorf, W., et al., 2010. Field procedures for real-world measurements of emissions from diesel construction vehicles. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 16 (3), 216 e 225 . Reveised, I., 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Kanagawa, Japan . Robertson, G.P., Paul, E.A., Harwood, R.R., 2000. Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science 289 (5486), 1922 e1925 . Russell-Smith, J., et al., 2009. Improving estimates of savanna burning emissions for greenhouse accounting in northern Australia: limitations, challenges, applica- tions. Int. J. Wildland Fire 18 (1), 1 e18 . Sandanayake, M., et al., 2015. Environmental emissions of construction equipment usage in pile foundation construction processd a case study. In: Shen, L., Ye, K., Mao, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Symposium on Advance- ment of Construction Management and Real Estate. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 327 e339 . Sandanayake, M., et al., 2016a. Models and method for estimation and comparison of direct emissions in building construction in Australia and a case study. Energy Build. 126, 128 e 138 . Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., 2016b. Environmental emissions at foundation construction stage of buildings e two case studies. Build. Environ. 95, 189e198. Sandhu, G., Frey, H., 2013. Effects of errors on vehicle emission rates from portable emissions measurement systems. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board (2340):