摘要
为探究埋地管道不同修复技术的碳足迹,本研究基于埋地管道生命周期分析与排放因子法提出了管道全生命周期碳足迹核算模型,该模型将管道生命周期划分为制造、运输、施工和运营4个阶段。结合管道工程的活动清单,本研究采用全生命周期碳足迹核算模型,对2种排水管道类型(重力流排水管道与压力流排水管道)在使用明挖法(OC)、碎管法(PB)、缩颈内衬法(DRL)、折叠内衬法(FFL)、穿插法(SL)、高分子材料喷涂法(PSR)以及紫外光固化法(UV-CIPP)7种修复技术时的全生命周期碳排放情况进行了分阶段核算和分析。结果表明,压力流排水管道的碳排放明显高于重力流排水管道。在压力流排水管道的全生命周期中,运营阶段的碳排放占比最高,约为99%。对于重力流排水管道,采用OC修复时,施工阶段的碳排放占比最高,为66.4%;而采用非开挖修复技术时,制造阶段的碳排放占比最高,介于48.0%和60.2%之间。在7种管道修复技术中,OC的碳排放最高,而UV-CIPP的碳排放最低。与OC相比,UV-CIPP在前3个阶段可减少60.4%的碳排放,且在全生命周期内,重力流排水管道的碳排放减少49.8%,压力流排水管道的碳排放减少7.6%。除采用低碳排放修复技术(如UV-CIPP)外,还可以通过选用低碳材料、使用可再生能源替代化石能源等措施来降低碳排放。本研究可为碳达峰和碳中和目标下埋地管道修复方法的选取提供理论指导和科学依据。
To explore the carbon footprint of various remediation technologies for buried pipelines,this paper proposed a comprehensive carbon footprint accounting model based on the life cycle analysis and the emission factor method.This study presented a methodology for integrating the life cycle carbon footprint accounting model with the activity inventory of pipeline engineering.The life cycle carbon emissions of two types of drainage pipes,gravity flow drainage pipe and pressure flow drainage pipe,were calculated and analyzed at each stage of the repair process,which employed seven techniques:Open-cut method(OC),pipe bursting method(PB),deformed and reformed lining method(DRL),fold and form lining method(FFL),slip lining method(SL),polymer spraying repair method(PSR),and cured-in-place-pipe method(UV-CIPP).The findings indicated that the carbon emissions associated with pressure flow drainage pipes were significantly higher than those associated with gravity flow drainage pipes.The operational stage of the pressure flow drainage pipeline had the highest carbon emission proportion throughout the entire life cycle,representing approximately 99%of the total.In the context of gravity flow drainage pipes,the construction stage represented the greatest source of carbon emissions,accounting for 66.4%of the total.In the case of trenchless remediation technology,the highest proportion of carbon emissions was observed in the manufacturing stage,with a range of 48.0%to 60.2%.Among the seven pipeline repair technologies,OC resulted in the highest carbon emissions,whereas UV-CIPP produced the lowest.In comparison to OC,UV-CIPP had the potential to reduce carbon emissions by 60.4%during the initial three stages.Furthermore,when considering the entire life cycle,the carbon emissions of gravity flow drainage pipes were reduced by 49.8%and those of pressure flow drainage pipes were reduced by 7.6%.In addition to using low-carbon remediation technologies such as UV-CIPP,carbon emissions could also be reduced by selecting low-carbon materials,utilizing renewable energy instead of fossil fuels,and other measures.This study can provide theoretical guidance and scientific basis for the selection of remediation methods in terms of buried pipelines under the objectives of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality.
作者
张超
孙迎娣
夏洋洋
王翠霞
张晓光
朱钢
赵鹏
方宏远
ZHANG Chao;SUN Yingdi;XIA Yangyang;WANG Cuixia;ZHANG Xiaoguang;ZHU Gang;ZHAO Peng;FANG Hongyuan(School of Water Conservancy and Transportation/Yellow River Laboratory(Zhengzhou University)/Underground Engineering Research Institute,Zhengzhou University,Zhengzhou 450001,China;Collaborative Innovation Center for Disaster Prevention and Control of Underground Engineering Jointly Built by Provinces and Ministries,Zhengzhou 450001,China;National Local Joint Engineering Laboratory of Major Infrastructure Testing and Rehabilitation Technology,Zhengzhou 450001,China;Yellow River Laboratory(Henan),Zhengzhou 450016,China;SAFEKEY Engineering Technology(Zhengzhou),Co.,Ltd.,Zhengzhou 450000,China;Chengdu Municipal Engineering Design and Research Institute Co.,Ltd.,Chengdu 610000,China)
出处
《环境工程学报》
北大核心
2025年第4期998-1010,共13页
Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering
基金
国家自然科学基金资助项目(52178368)
河南省自然科学基金重点项目(232300421137)
河南省重点研发专项(241111322700)。
关键词
管道修复
碳足迹模型
全生命周期
非开挖修复技术
减排
pipeline repair
carbon footprint model
full life cycle
trenchless remediation technology
emission reduction
