Abstract
With the green energy transition, the wind industry has grown rapidly in recent decades. Wind turbine blades (WTBs) are primarily manufactured from glass fibers and thermoset matrix composites. Considering their lifetime from 20 to 25 years, significant amounts of wind turbine components will eventually enter the global waste stream. Currently, recycling is not sufficiently optimized and commercially available. Other strategies, such as repurpose, are becoming relevant to divert components from waste streams. This research explores a pathway to sustainable repurposing of decommissioned WTBs. The concept of a tiny house constructed from the root section of a 5 MW/61.5 m WTB is presented (“5 MW house”). The deformations and stresses of the repurposed composite structures were investigated using a finite element analysis based on the three load cases, defined by (1) a combination of snow load and payload, (2) a combination of wind load and payload, and (3) a thermal stress analysis of a critical temperature distribution of the 5 MW house. Furthermore, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed concept. The numerical analysis results showed that the 5 MW house can withstand the applied loads, and that the deformations are within acceptable limits. A reduction of up to 97% in environmental impacts for most impact categories was calculated, compared to a wooden tiny house, whereas climate change, ozone depletion, and eutrophication potential were up to 3.7 times higher, mainly due to the weight and composition of the 5 MW house. The authors believe that the proposed concept may be a high-volume repurposed solution for large-scale WTB root sections.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Wind energy technology has experienced a rapid growth in recent decades (Larsen 2009). Since the service life of a wind turbine is limited to 20 to 25 years (Gopalraj and Kärki 2020; Jensen and Skelton 2018; Marsh 2017), the issue of wind turbine blade (WTB) disposal is pressing and still unresolved. As indicated by Albers et al. (2009), Europe is expected to generate more than 60.000 tons of WTB waste annually by 2025. Lahuerta et al. (2023) estimate that approximately 7.6 million tons of composite materials from end-of-life (EoL) WTBs will need to be disposed of in Europe by 2050. WTBs are primarily constructed of composite materials consisting of a thermoset matrix and glass fiber reinforcements (Fingersh et al. 2006; Mishnaevsky et al. 2017; Witten and Mathes 2019). However, there is currently no industrially viable technology for recycling glass fiber reinforced polymers (GFRP) (Beauson and Brøndsted 2016; Joustra et al. 2021; Marsh 2017; Schmid et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020). In addition, the mechanical properties of glass fibers are degraded during the recycling process, and the cost of recovering glass fibers is significantly higher than the market price of virgin glass fibers (Colledani and Turri 2022). Recycling on its own, especially when it involves low-grade materials, remains strongly connected to a linear economy (Potting et al. 2017). Other treatment strategies besides recycling are needed to avoid unsustainable waste streams such as landfilling or incinerating (Johst et al. 2023b). Landfilling is subject to several taxes, and incineration has a high environmental impact due to carbon emissions (Gopalraj and Kärki 2020).
The repurposing approach is a promising alternative for GFRP WTB waste (Delaney et al. 2021; Johst et al. 2023a; Joustra et al. 2021; Nagle et al. 2022; Ruane et al. 2023). Repurposing aims to use the geometry of a WTB to reuse cut segments for structural or semi-structural applications with a different function (Beauson et al. 2022; Kupfer et al. 2022). The Re-Wind Network (The Re-Wind Network 2023), founded in 2017, is conducting research on the repurposing of fiber-reinforced polymers. The network, consisting of five universities and industry partners, has created a catalog (McDonald et al. 2021) that identifies several potential repurposed applications of WTBs, such as affordable housing (Bank et al. 2018; Gentry et al. 2020), urban furniture (Jensen and Skelton 2018), electrical transmission poles (Alshannaq et al. 2021), or bridges (Ruane et al. 2023; Suhail et al. 2019). The reuse of composite materials from a discarded WTB in civil engineering applications that do not require significant reprocessing is becoming increasingly attractive (Delaney et al. 2021). This is mainly due to weight savings (Beukers and van Hinte 2020), high corrosion resistance compared to metals (Domke and Rübben 1977; Krahwinkel and Gehmert 2011), and resulting low maintenance requirements (Colledani and Turri 2022). In addition, the repurposed structural elements have been found to meet geometric design standards and outperform conventional building materials in terms of flexural stiffness and strength. Moreover, the reduction of environmental impacts throughout the product life cycle has been recognized (Joustra et al. 2021). Because of these advantages, there are already companies (Wings for Living 2023) commercially selling semi-structural components for various applications.
However, it is challenging to identify repurposed applications that cover a large amount of GFRP or other composites and can be mass produced for a specific end market (Beauson and Brøndsted 2016; Hopkinson et al. 2019; Mishnaevsky et al. 2017). Industrial implementation of such solutions requires a reliable source of composite material with continuous dimensions. This appears to be difficult for decommissioned WTBs due to the variety of models and blade geometries (Beauson et al. 2022; Joustra et al. 2021). Furthermore, transporting remanufactured structures remains challenging. Glass fiber content has an impact on processing costs. High glass fiber content requires special cutting equipment. The processing of large-scale GFRP requires health and safety precautions because of occurring micro glass particles (Jensen and Skelton 2018). Another challenge is the evaluation of the residual structural properties of the composites when a certain quality of the composite material is required (Fujita and Masuda 2014; Kucher et al. 2023).
In order to increase the percentage of reused composite materials, repurposed applications for the root sections of WTBs need to be investigated, in particular, due to the continuous structural geometry of the root section (Joustra et al. 2021). It is the part of the blade that is connected to the wind turbine and is shaped as a circular tube (Beauson et al. 2022). It usually consists of thick and massive GFRP walls. For WTBs with a length of more than 60 m, the root section is geometrically characterized by an average diameter of more than 3 m and a length of more than 5 m (Joustra et al. 2021). The aim of this study is to introduce a tiny house concept from the root section structures of a decommissioned WTB that could overcome all the previously mentioned challenges in repurposing. In a proof of concept, it is shown whether a tiny house made from the root section material of the reference model of a 5 MW/61.5 m wind turbine blade (Löffler 2022; Resor 2013) can withstand the mechanical requirements. The concept of the repurposed tiny house was inspired by the architectural style of Frankenwald chalets, a popular tourist accommodation (Löffler 2022).
Furthermore, the environmental impacts and benefits of repurposing the root section of large-scale WTBs as a tiny house are evaluated using the life cycle assessment (LCA) approach. LCA is a widely accepted, holistic, and standardized (ISO 14040 2006; ISO 14044 2006) methodology for assessing the environmental impacts of processes or products. Previous LCA investigations on the repurpose of decommissioned wind turbine components into new structures have shown significant environmental benefits, either compared to conventional waste treatment processes such as landfilling and incineration (Deeney et al. 2021), or compared to conventional manufacturing of new structures from raw materials (Henao et al. 2022). Several possible repurposed structures have been proposed for decommissioned wind turbine components. However, to our knowledge, the utilization of the root section of wind blades for the construction of tiny houses has not been previously investigated from a sustainability perspective.
Material and Methods
5 MW/61.5 m WTB Reference Model as Base Material
The 5 MW/61.5 m wind turbine blade (WTB) reference model serves as the base material within this study to investigate the blade design and determine the structural properties of the repurposed materials. The design of the WTB model was formulated through a collaborative effort between the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and Sandia National Laboratories, using insights from an analysis conducted as part of the Dutch Offshore Wind Energy Converter (DOWEC) project (Jonkman et al. 2009; Resor 2013). The choice of this model resulted from the fact that it differs from commercial blades, as it was designed for research purposes with publicly available specifications (Tasistro-Hart et al. 2019). With a length of 61.5 m, it was deliberately designed for a 5-MW wind turbine, a size common to both onshore and offshore wind turbines, and is thus an appropriate representation of today’s wind turbines (Liu and Barlow 2017; Resor 2013).
According to Fig. 1, the reference WTB consists of three different sections: the root, the midspan, and the outboard section (Jonkman et al. 2009). The weight of the blade is 17.7 t in its full scale (Resor 2013). The root section is examined more closely: It has a diameter of 3.4 m and a length of 5.5 m with an average wall thickness of approximately 50 mm. The weight of the root section is approximately 4.7 t, which is about 25% of the total weight of the whole WTB, as a lot of material is needed in the root section area. For the composite material, the weight of each of the main components (1.4 t of epoxy resin, 2.95 t of glass fibers, 0.3 t of foam, 0.05 t of carbon fiber-reinforced prepreg resin) was calculated based on average values reported for the WTB structure and a developed geometrical model based on this data (Resor 2013). The root section of the 5 MW/61.5 m WTB reference model consists of a high weight percentage of GFRP.
Concept of the 5 MW House from Root Section Material
The 5 MW/61.5 m WTB root section allows it to be repurposed as a tiny house with the aim of minimizing cutting effort (i.e., cutting in straight lines) and maximizing the utilization of EoL WTB material. First, an architectural design was developed as a sustainable living unit for vacation with a functional structure (see Fig. 13 in the appendix). The root section is repurposed as the building envelope, and the two shear webs can be used as load-bearing and insulated floor plates. The floor plate is positioned to maintain a distance of 0.5 m between the floor and the inside edge of the building envelope, allowing the user to stand upright and to provide storage space. The proposed concept is shown schematically in Figs. 2 and 3. After dismantling the reference WTB from the wind turbine tower, the concept requires two cutting steps.
The first cutting step is planned with a water-cooled diamond wire saw (Hechler 2019) to cut out the root section from the rest of the WTB. The second cutting step uses a power saw to cut both shear webs out of the reference WTB. These shear webs are cut to the required dimensions to be used as floor panels for the 5 MW tiny house built from 5 MW/61.5 m WTB root section parts — hereafter referred to as the “5 MW house.”
The cutting processes resulting in following composite structures to be used as repurposed material: cylindrical building envelope and floor plate (Fig. 2). Based on this concept of the 5 MW house structures (Fig. 3), the amount of decommissioned material, the amount of additional input materials, and the energy requirements for cutting and transporting the decommissioned wind turbine components could be quantitatively calculated (cf. “Approach to Assess the Tiny House from an Environmental Point of View” — inventory analysis).
Finite Element Analysis of EoL WTB Segments
The finite element analysis (FEA) is based on the introduced base material (cf. “5 MW/61.5 m WTB Reference Model as Base Material”). In order to prove the concept of the 5 MW house from the decommissioned reference WTB (cf. “Concept of the 5 MW House from Root Section Material”), the FEA was carried out considering the mechanical and thermal requirements for a tiny house. Therefore, the simulation software Ansys (Ansys Workbench 2022 R2, Ansys Inc.; Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, USA) was used together with an AMD Ryzen CPU (AMD Ryzen 7 4700U with Radeon Graphics, 2000 MHz, 8 cores, 9 logical processes). For the developed design concept (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 3), a static mechanical analysis was carried out taking into account snow load, wind load, payload, and self-weight load, as well as a thermal stress analysis for a critical temperature distribution. It was assumed that the front and the back wall of the 5 MW house are not included in the FEA as they are not materials repurposed from WTBs.
Simulation Model
The blade geometry, including blade span \(R\), airfoil profile, chord length, airfoil translation, and airfoil rotation, is based on the definition of the 5 MW/61.5 m wind turbine blade reference model (Resor 2013). A quadrilateral dominant mesh with a maximum element size of 50 mm for the WTB segment’s geometry was used according to the recommendation of Resor (2013). This yields a mesh which consists of 28.763 elements and 28.875 nodes for the WTB segment (Fig. 4a).
The material and the layers in the stacks of the 5 MW/61.5 m WTB were used for this conceptual study (Resor 2013) (Tables 1 and 2; Fig. 5). It should be noted that the material properties not provided by Resor (2013) were taken from the Ansys Granta Material Properties Database or were estimated using micromechanical rules of mixture (e.g., Schürmann 2007). Therefore, the material properties of the individual constituents provided by Schürmann (2007) are considered.
The fiber direction of all orthotropic layers was oriented in the axial direction of the blade. The floor blade is made by two repurposed shear webs. Each shear web consists of a foam core with a thickness of 50 mm and two outer layers of the GF/EP Saertex material with a thickness of 1 mm (Table 2; Resor 2013).
Applied Geometrical Boundary Conditions and Load Cases
The cylindrical building envelope lies on six stands (Fig. 3). The contact areas of the stands were clamped without displacement or rotation (Fig. 4b). A volumetric load representing the self-weight load of the structural components was considered. The connection between the WTB segment and the floor plate was assumed as a fixed constraint. With these assumptions, the following three load cases of the 5 MW house are investigated using FEA:
-
Load case (1): Combination of snow load and payload (see Fig. 4c, isoparametric shell element with isotropic/orthotropic material),
-
Load case (2): Combination of wind load and payload (see Fig. 4e, use both isoparametric solid and shell elements with isotropic/orthotropic material),
-
Load case (3): Thermal stress analysis of the critical temperature distribution (see Fig. 4f, isoparametric solid elements with isotropic/orthotropic material).
According to Genzel and Voigt (2005) and Baar (2021), a snow load with a value of \({p}_{\text{snow}}\) = 1 kN/m2 and a horizontal wind load represented by a wind speed with a value of \({v}_{\text{wind}}\) = 22.5 m/s were considered (Fig. 4c and e). Using a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software (CFX 2022 R1, Ansys Inc.; Canonsburg, PA, USA), a flow analysis of the airflow around the 5 MW house was performed to determine the distribution of the surface pressure \({p}_{\mathrm{wind}}\) on the windward and leeward side of the 5 MW house (Fig. 4d). For the quantification of the snow load, a smooth pipe was assumed, where the snow slides off from a slope of 45° onwards. A payload on the floor plate of \({p}_{\text{payload}}\) = 1.5 kN/m2 was applied (Ackermann et al. 2014; Baar 2021). An unequal temperature distribution was assumed for the thermal analysis of the repurposed WTB segments. Therefore, a temperature of \(\vartheta =\)−4 °C was considered for the lower part of the cylindrical building envelope and a temperature of \(\vartheta =\) 20 °C was applied to the top of the composite structure (see Fig. 4f). Using these boundary conditions, the resulting temperature distribution was calculated by means of a thermal steady-state analysis. This temperature distribution approximates the situation in central Europe during fall or spring when the ground is frozen and the heat radiation of the sun heats the 5 MW house’s upper parts, which was considered as critical ambient condition.
For each load case, the practically relevant maximum deformations \({u}_{i}\) of the composite structure and the reserve factor of the Puck’s failure criterion \({f}_{\mathrm{R}}\) (Puck et al. 2002) are determined using the resulting stresses within each layer and the parameters of the Puck’s failure criterion (Table 1). A reserve factor of \({f}_{\mathrm{R}}<1\) indicates failure. In case of a reserve factor of \({f}_{\mathrm{R}}\ge 1\), the structure withstands the applied loads. The resulting reserve factor was used for the failure assessment of the 5 MW house for the different loads applied. In addition, the calculated deformations of each load case were evaluated using the Ackermann et al. (2010) deformation limit for structural composites.
Approach to Assess the Tiny House from an Environmental Point of View
To assess the environmental impacts, a comparative LCA was applied to the envisioned 5 MW house and to a commercial tiny house, manufactured from virgin instead of repurposed construction materials. LCA was performed according to ISO standardized procedures (ISO 14040 2006; ISO 14044 2006), and consisted of four stages: (1) Goal and scope definition, (2) Inventory analysis, (3) Impact assessment, (4) Interpretation. The definition of life cycle stages under investigation was based on EU standard EN 15978 for the environmental performance estimation of buildings (2012) and is schematically depicted in Fig. 6.
Goal and Scope
The goal of this study is to compare a commercial tiny house constructed primarily of wood with a house manufactured primarily of a decommissioned WTB root section (the 5 MW house). A cradle-to-grave approach was used. The functional unit was defined as a tiny house, which can provide accommodation for up to two people for 50 years. While there are several environmental impacts associated with the use phase of the structure, such as electricity consumption over the 50 years of lifetime, this stage was excluded, as no difference can be predicted between the two houses in terms of the use phase. Nevertheless, materials with service life of at least 50 years were selected for the inventory of the two houses whenever possible (i.e., when the reference service life was reported) to ensure that the intended lifetime is comparable between the two houses, despite exclusion of the use phase. Repurposing of wind turbine components as tiny houses is an alternative to other EoL processes, such as recycling, repurposing in different applications, incineration, or landfilling, and therefore, an avoided EoL treatment process could be credited to the system boundary of 5 MW houses (e.g., avoided transport of WTB waste to EoL treatment location and landfilling or recycling). However, considering the variety of possible repurpose applications and recycling methods, as well as the possibility to repair and re-use components for wind turbines, selecting a representative EoL treatment process alternative as an avoided process was not possible, and therefore, it was excluded from the system boundaries. Decommissioned components enter the system boundaries without any impact from the materials, manufacture, use, or EoL phase of the original structure (i.e., wind turbines). The impacts of repurposed components’ separation from the wind turbines (e.g., wire sawing) and of their transport to the construction site are credited to the lifecycle of the 5 MW house. The remaining components of the wind turbine are excluded from the system boundaries. While several recycling processes exist to treat waste composite materials from wind turbines (Kalkanis et al. 2019), a prediction of their development by the end of the 50-year life cycle of tiny houses cannot be made accurately by the authors. Therefore, the conventional processes of landfilling and incineration with energy recovery were considered for the structural components of the two houses. The value chain described in this section are also visually presented in Fig. 6. For components assessed based on published environmental product declarations (EPDs), the system boundaries and included processes (e.g., energy, raw materials, waste and byproducts at different stages) are modelled as reported in the corresponding EPD. The system boundaries for the repurposed root section are shown in Online Resource 1 (SI_1, Section 1, Figure S1).
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
For the commercial tiny house, LCI data was collected from published EPDs and from the Ecoinvent 3.8 database, modelled using the LCA software SimaPro (version 9.4.0.2). The design of the commercial tiny house was based on the tourist accommodation Frankenwald Chalets (https://frankenwald-chalets.de/), located in Wilhelmsthal, Germany, selected due to their half-elliptical structure, which resembles the structure of the 5 MW house (Figs. 2 and 3), thus making them comparable over multiple criteria (i.e., size, amount of input materials, aesthetics, living space, amenities). The location of the chalets was selected as the construction site of both commercial and 5 MW tiny houses, and all distances for road transport of construction and waste materials (via freight, lorry 3.5–7.5 metric ton, EURO4) were calculated based on this location using Google maps. The size of the commercial house was assumed to be the same as the 5 MW house (5.5 m length, 13 m2 interior floor area). To compare the commercial and 5 MW house, the LCI was limited to materials and processes that are different between the two structures, whereas materials and processes that are the same (e.g., appliances, doors, and windows, and their corresponding manufacture, transportation, application, deconstruction, and EoL treatment) were excluded. Based on this, a bill of materials was created for the two houses (Table 3), and a detailed description of the processes and materials included in the LCI is given in Online Resource 1 (SI_1, Section 1).
Impact Assessment
The Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) was performed using SimaPro for processes modelled based on data from Ecoinvent, whereas for processes and materials modelled based on EPDs, the LCIA results were directly retrieved from the corresponding EPDs. In order to ensure uniformity of the LCIA results, EPDs were exclusively selected that use the EU Standard EN15804 + A2 Standard for LCIA (2019), and the same method (EU Standard EN15804 + A2 version 1.03) was also selected for LCIA in SimaPro. In this method, the environmental impacts are calculated and reported over multiple midpoint impact categories, and the following 19 were included in the assessment: climate change — total (kg CO2 eq); ozone depletion (kg CFC11 eq); ionizing radiation (kBq U-235 eq); photochemical ozone formation (kg NMVOC eq); particulate matter (disease inc.); human toxicity, non-cancer (CTUh); human toxicity, cancer (CTUh); acidification (mol H+ eq); eutrophication, freshwater (kg P eq); eutrophication, marine (kg N eq); eutrophication, terrestrial (mol N eq); ecotoxicity, freshwater (CTUe); land use (Pt); water use (m3 depriv.); resource use, fossils (MJ); resource use, minerals and metals (kg Sb eq); climate change — fossil (kg CO2 eq); climate change — biogenic (kg CO2 eq); and climate change — land use and land use change (LULUC) (kg CO2 eq). All LCIA results presented in the “Results” section stem from the characterization step of the EU Standard EN15804 + A2 method, whereas no normalization or weighing was performed on the LCIA results.
Results
Results of Finite Element Analysis
Deformation and Failure Analysis for a Combination of Snow Load and Payload (Load Case 1)
For the combined snow load and payload, a maximum deformation of 9.8 mm was determined at the roof of the 5 MW house (Fig. 7a). The stresses between the floor plate and the WTB envelope reach the highest values. However, a minimum reserve factor of 5.9 was obtained in this region (Fig. 7b). The CPU runtime for the simulation was 22 s.
Deformation and Failure Analysis for a Combination of Wind Load and Payload (Load Case 2)
For the combined wind load and payload, a maximum deformation of 7.6 mm was determined at the roof of the 5 MW house (Fig. 8a). The stresses between the floor plate and the WTB envelope reach the highest values. However, non-critical loads were identified due to a minimum reserve factor of 5.3 in this region (Fig. 8b). The CPU runtime for the simulation was 265 s.
Deformation and Failure Analysis for an Unequal Temperature Distribution (Load Case 3)
Due to the unequal temperature distribution (Fig. 9a), unequal deformation of the WTB envelope occurs. The highest deformation magnitude was reached at the roof with a value of 9.2 mm (Fig. 9b). For the static thermal analysis, the maximum stresses occurred between the floor plate and the WTB envelope, as in load case 1 and load case 2. However, a minimum reserve factor of 1.9 was determined (Fig. 9c). The CPU runtime for the simulation was 199 s.
According to Ackermann et al. (2010), the deformation limit \({u}_{d}\) of structural composites with high requirements should not be exceeded, where \({u}_{d}\) is given by Eq. (1).
Using the repurposed envelope diameter of 3400 mm as the support width \(l\), Eq. (1) gives a deformation limit of 17 mm. The resulting magnitude of deformation for load case 1 at 9.8 mm, load case 2 at 7.6 mm, and load case 3 at 9.2 mm are all below the limit of deformation. In addition to the magnitude of the observed deformations, the results obtained from the reserve factor of the Puck’s failure criterion \({f}_{\mathrm{R}}\) indicate that the repurposed WTB structures can withstand the investigated loads with reasonable safety margins. This is achieved even in the absence of a front and back wall. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the 5 MW house structure, with the inclusion of both front and back walls become more stable against loads induced by the case of the three considered load cases.
Environmental Assessment of the Tiny House
The results of the comparative LCA for the commercial and 5 MW tiny house are shown in Fig. 10. The environmental impacts were calculated for one house, as per the functional unit definition. For each impact category, the cumulative contribution of materials and processes for each house is expressed as a percentage, compared to the house contributing to the highest (or lowest negative) impact, which is set to 100% (or negative 100%, in the case of negative environmental impacts, i.e., environmental benefits). In Fig. 10a, the impacts of upstream processes are reported, i.e., the production of raw building components (A1–A3), their transportation to the construction site (A4), and the construction of the house, including installation of materials and treatment of packaging waste (A5). In Fig. 10b and c, the full life cycle from cradle-to-grave is assessed for each house, assuming different scenarios for the EoL treatment of the main construction materials (i.e., landfilling in Fig. 10b and incineration with energy recovery in Fig. 10c).
When only the production and construction phases are considered (Fig. 10a), the 5 MW house had lower environmental impacts compared to the commercial structure in most impact categories, except for climate change and ozone depletion, with, for example, up to 97% decrease for non-cancer human toxicity and particulate matter potential. In addition to climate change and ozone depletion, when the entire life cycle is considered, assuming landfilling for the EoL treatment (Fig. 10b), the 5 MW house also had higher environmental impacts for marine and terrestrial eutrophication impact categories. Instead, for the EoL scenario of incineration with energy recovery (Fig. 10c), the 5 MW house had lower environmental impacts for most impact categories, except for climate change, marine, and terrestrial eutrophication. Specifically, the total climate change potential of the repurposed house was approximately 2.2 times higher for the 5 MW house when stages A1–A5 are considered, and approximately 3.7 and 1.7 times higher when the full life cycle is considered for the landfill and incineration scenario, respectively. This is partially due to the biogenic climate change potential for wood material, the main construction component for the commercial tiny house, which has a negative environmental impact (i.e., an environmental benefit) for both plywood and timber wood included in the inventory, as a result of carbon dioxide storage from the atmosphere in wood biomass via the process of photosynthesis (Hoxha et al. 2020). Considering the negative biogenic carbon impact, as well as the advantage of biobased materials in terms of resource depletion, compared to non-renewable building components, wood is considered the best building material from a sustainability perspective (Stepien et al. 2022; Yadav and Agarwal 2021). This finding is often confirmed in LCA studies comparing wood with other building materials, with the former resulting in lower environmental impacts when the construction and EoL stages are considered (Abed et al. 2022; Grygierek et al. 2020; Petersen and Solberg 2005; Schenk and Amiri 2022). Besides the negative environmental impacts (i.e., environmental benefits) for biogenic carbon of the commercial tiny house, energy recovery upon incineration also contributed to negative environmental impacts across several impact categories for both houses (Fig. 10c), due to the avoided processes of heat and electricity production modelled in this scenario. Nevertheless, a clear conclusion cannot be drawn regarding which EoL treatment process has the best environmental performance, as the advantages of landfilling over incineration varied per impact category. A comparison of the impacts between the two EoL treatment processes for each house is shown in Online Resource 1 (SI_1, Section 2, Figure S2).
Aside from the cumulative impact of all materials and processes in each impact category, the contribution of different stages per impact category was also calculated for the two houses, and the results are shown in Fig. 11 (for the 5 MW house) and in Online Resource 1 (SI_1, Section 2, Figure S3, for the commercial tiny house). For the 5 MW house under both EoL scenarios, the highest contribution to particulate matter and non-cancer human toxicity was from the production of raw materials and, specifically, the production of the adhesive used to connect the floor to the house envelope, which contributed more than 90% to these impact categories among all materials and processes in stages A1–A5. For most other impact categories in the landfill scenario, the highest contributor was the transport of materials to the construction site (A4; Fig. 11a) and particularly the transport of repurposed wind turbine components, due to the high weight (over 4.7 t) and transport distance (678 km), resulting in over 35% of the marine eutrophication, over 64% of the terrestrial eutrophication, over 59% of total climate change, and over 62% of the ozone depletion potential impact categories along the entire 5 MW house life cycle under the landfill scenario. Instead, the highest contributor to the marine eutrophication impact category for the 5 MW house under the landfilling EoL scenario was the landfill process itself (C4, over 44% of impacts for marine eutrophication along entire life cycle; Fig. 11a). Within the landfill process of the repurposed components, the mixed plastic material used as a proxy for the epoxy resin had the highest contribution to the marine eutrophication impact category (97%), despite only contributing to 30% of the repurposed components’ weight, and the substance responsible for this high impact was mainly the ammonium ions released to water upon landfilling of mixed plastic waste, which contributed to over 88% of the total marine eutrophication impacts within the repurposed material landfilling process. Similarly, for the incineration scenario, the transportation of materials to the construction site (A4) and the incineration process (C3) had the highest contribution to most impact categories examined (Fig. 11b). For example, the transport of repurposed wind turbine components to the construction site contributed to over 26% of total climate change, over 63% of marine eutrophication, and over 68% terrestrial eutrophication potential along the entire life cycle of the 5 MW house under the incineration scenario. The incineration of repurposed components contributed to over 60% of the total climate change potential along the entire life cycle of the 5 MW house, primarily due to the fossil CO2 emissions of mixed plastic incineration, which corresponded to over 90% of the total CO2 eq. emissions of repurposed component incineration, despite the low weight percentage of the epoxy resin compared to the total weight of repurposed components (30%). Based on these findings, and considering the inferior environmental performance of the 5 MW house compared to the commercial house for ozone depletion, marine, and terrestrial eutrophication (Fig. 10b and c), it stands to reason that decreasing the distance between the wind turbine park and the construction site could significantly improve the environmental performance of the 5 MW house. Furthermore, more specialized LCA library processes for composite material components ought to be considered. Mixed plastic waste was used as a broad proxy for the epoxy resin, based on previously published LCA work on composite materials (Hermansson et al. 2022; Stergiou et al. 2022; Vo Dong et al. 2018; Wu et al. 2023). However, given the significant impacts of EoL treatment, a more specific proxy for resins, in combination with more accurate data of composition for different parts of the repurposed components (i.e., cylindrical structure, shear webs), would be needed to improve the understanding of its specific impacts and to contribute to the development of material-specific mitigation strategies for EoL impacts.
Considering the significant contribution of the transportation process of construction materials from the manufacturing to the construction site (A4), an additional scenario was assessed for the repurposed tiny house, assuming a different wind park location. Specifically, for this scenario, the wind park Stößen Teuchern Standört Gröbitz was selected, with a distance of 136 km from the construction site. The full life cycle of tiny houses was considered for this scenario, assuming a landfilling process at the EoL stage, and three houses were compared: a 5 MW house with the original location of the wind park (i.e., 678 km), a 5 MW house with the adapted location of the wind park (136 km), and a commercial tiny house. The results of this comparison are shown in Fig. 12. Additional results on the comparative LCA of the 5 MW and commercial tiny house with the adapted location of the wind turbine park, as well as the percentage contribution of different life cycle stages with the adapted location, are shown in Online Resource 1 (SI_1, Section 2, Figures S4 and S5). As can be observed in Fig. 12, while the climate change potential and marine eutrophication were still lower for the commercial tiny house, the modelled decrease in transportation distance for the 5 MW house resulted in a significant decrease of environmental impacts for all impact categories, of up to 51% (for minerals and metals resource depletion). Decreasing the transportation distance resulted in lower impacts of the 5 MW house for ozone depletion and terrestrial eutrophication compared to the commercial house, as opposed to the original distance modelled (Fig. 10b). Overall, these results highlight the potential of the envisioned repurposed application to provide a sustainable solution for the EoL treatment of decommissioned wind turbine components. Finally, these results demonstrate the significant effects of transportation processes, which ought to be carefully considered in process design and sustainability assessments.
Discussion
Issues that have yet to be addressed, but which warrant consideration, include both compliance with building regulations relevant to tiny houses and the degradation of mechanical properties with composite materials over time. These concerns are addressed in the following sections.
The regulations for tiny houses are governed by various existing laws, the Landesbauordnungen (state building codes) in Germany as building codes, which are largely the same for all German states, and EU regulations, which apply to all structures and regulated or compliant building products. Buildings must be designed, constructed, altered, and maintained in such a way that public safety and order, in particular life, health, and the natural foundations of life, are not endangered. Construction products and types of construction may only be used if they fulfil these principles within a reasonable period and are fit for use (§3(1); Saechische Bauordnung 2016). Buildings must be arranged, constructed, and fit for use in such a way that no hazards or unacceptable nuisances are caused by water, moisture, plant and animal pests, or other chemical, physical, or biological influences (§13(1); Saechische Bauordnung 2016). To ensure this, every building or construction must be officially approved. Tiny houses as detached buildings with up to 400 \({\mathrm{m}}^{2}\) and up to two usage units are defined as building class 1 (§2(3); Saechische Bauordnung 2016) with the lowest general requirements for the construction, such as stability (§12); protection against harmful influences (§13); fire protection (§14); heat, sound, and vibration protection (§15); and traffic safety (§16). The design, material definition, and dimensions of the 5 MW house follow these standards. The foundation, as a steel structure, must be fire-retardant, but there are no requirements for the living floor. The repurposed shear webs as a floor structure with 5 cm of foam must be doubled to achieve the required U-value of 0.35 W/(\({\mathrm{m}}^{2}\mathrm{K}\)) as the heat transfer coefficient (Gebäudeenergiegesetz 2020). In addition, new buildings will have to incorporate a certain amount of renewable energy, for example, through the use of photovoltaic or solar thermal systems. To extend the usability of the 5 MW house, it could even be developed as an Autarc building, following the example of architect Renzo Piano’s Diogene (Vitra International AG 2013) or the Ecocapsule (Ecocapsule 2023), a self-sustaining capsule house.
Another important aspect is that during the service life of WTBs, the properties of the WTBs degrade due to fatigue loads since the WTB rotates (Alshannaq et al. 2021; Joustra et al. 2021). This degradation behavior of the composite material must be considered to ensure the structural integrity of the repurposed composites components. There are few studies in the literature on the residual strength of the composite material of WTBs that were previously in-service and subsequently decommissioned. On the one hand, according to Sayer et al. (2009), Beauson and Brøndsted (2016), and Ruane et al. (2022), no significant damage to the WTB was observed in visual inspection and the composite retained its high strength and stiffness. On the other hand, (Alshannaq et al. 2021) stated that the strength and stiffness of the composite in a WTB degrades in a range of 10–20%. Consideration of degradation was outside the scope of the finite element analysis. However, future studies need to consider the degradation and EoL damage state of the repurposed composite structures.
Building envelopes and load-bearing structures made of GFRP from the 1960s and 1970s (Genzel 2006; Voigt 2007), which are still in use today, prove the predicted durability of these lightweight materials. In particular, the tube house (1970–1994, BRD) by Swiss architect Franz Ulrich Dutler, structural engineer Heinz Isler, CH, can serve as a reference (Genzel and Voigt 2005). Long-term strength is calculated using reduction factors from the short-term strengths determined on the material. In addition to fatigue, ageing due to UV, temperature and assumed manufacturing inaccuracies are also considered. Heinz Isler measured these reductions very narrowly, relying on his own measurements and structural tests (Genzel and Voigt 2021).
Conclusions
Repurposing may become the best option for GFRP from discarded WTBs if recycling is still not economically viable and co-processing is not reasonable due to circular economy principles (Nagle et al. 2022). Therefore, the aim of the current study was to present a conceptual solution for the root section of a blade from the 5 MW/61.5 m wind turbine reference model. The authors believe that the proposed concept could be a high-volume industrial application, especially in light of the housing shortage, using a large amount of reused GFRP in the tiny house market. Firstly, the root section of large-scale WTBs provides reliable composite materials with a continuous geometry. Secondly, the 5 MW house concept requires little reprocessing and transportation of the cut root section components seems to be feasible.
The numerical investigations showed that the 5 MW house can be a suitable application from a mechanical point of view. Deformation and failure analyses were performed through finite element analysis. According to the results obtained from Puck’s failure criterion, it appears that repurposed WTB components (cylindrical building envelope and floor plates) can effectively endure the expected loads with reasonable safety margins. The 5 MW house concept could represent a good practice example within the circular economy approach, as the composite materials maintain highest utility and value. In addition, it was found that environmental benefits can be expected from the use of decommissioned wind turbine components for construction, compared to the use of virgin materials, with a potential for environmental impact decrease of up to 97% over the entire life cycle of tiny houses.
As freestanding buildings with a small base area, tiny houses are subject to very few building codes. In particular, the fire protection requirements, which are currently undefined for GFRP WTBs, are low for this building class and can therefore be satisfied by the 5 MW house concept. Additionally, the thermal insulation requirements, especially those outlined in the Gebäudeenergiegesetz (2020), could also be met conceptually.
In 2015, member nations of the United Nations collectively established a set of 17 global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the aim of eradicating poverty, safeguarding the environment, and securing prosperity for everyone (UNDP 2023). The tiny house presented in this study as a repurposed application could contribute to several SDGs, e.g., Goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities), Goal 12 (responsible consumption and production), or Goal 13 (climate action).
Data Availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Abed J, Rayburg S, Rodwell J, Neave M (2022) A review of the performance and benefits of mass timber as an alternative to concrete and steel for improving the sustainability of structures. Sustainability 14:5570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095570
Ackermann G, Böhme G et al (2014) Tragende Kunststoffbauteile. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden
Ackermann G, Deußer S, Gabler M, Gastmeyer R, Genzel E, Gerold M, Jung C, Knippers J, Krahwinkel M, Kruppe J, Meyer HJ, Morgen K, Nordhues HW, Schadow R, Stahl J, Taprogge R, Trumpf H, Vidackovic M, Wörner JD, Böhme G, Pühl HG (2010) BÜV-Empfehlung: Tragende Kunststoffbauteile im Bauwesen (TKB): Entwurf, Bemessung und Konstruktion. https://www.buev.eu/images/pdf/buev-kunststoff-empfehlung.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2023
Albers H, Greiner S, Seifert H, Kuehne U (2009) Recycling of wind turbine rotor blades. Fact or fiction?: Recycling von Rotorblaettern aus Windenergieanlagen. Fakt oder Fiktion? DEWI-Magazin, Germany, pp 32-41
Alshannaq AA, Bank LC, Scott DW, Gentry R (2021) A decommissioned wind blade as a second-life construction material for a transmission pole. Constr Mater 1:95–104. https://doi.org/10.3390/constrmater1020007
Baar S (2021) Lohmeyer Baustatik 1: Grundlagen und Einwirkungen. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden
Bank L, Arias F, Yazdanbakhsh A, Gentry T, Al-Haddad T, Chen J-F, Morrow R (2018) Concepts for reusing composite materials from decommissioned wind turbine blades in affordable housing. Recycling 3:3. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling3010003
Beauson J, Brøndsted P (2016) Wind turbine blades: an end of life perspective. In: Ostachowicz W, McGugan M, Schröder-Hinrichs J-U, Luczak M (eds) MARE-WINT. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 421–432
Beauson J, Laurent A, Rudolph DP, Pagh Jensen J (2022) The complex end-of-life of wind turbine blades: a review of the European context. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 155:111847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111847
Beukers A, van Hinte E (2020) Designing lightness - principles of weight reduction. https://www.lightness-studios.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Brochure-Designing-Lightyness_2019_bklein.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2023
Bundesverband der Deutschen Ziegelindustrie (2021) Roofing tiles (including accessories): EPD-BDZ-20210268-IBG2-EN. Germany. Accessed 15 July 2023. https://epd-online.com/EmbeddedEpdList/Detail?id=15387
Colledani M, Turri S (eds) (2022) Systemic circular economy solutions for fiber reinforced composites. Springer International Publishing, Cham
Deeney P, Nagle AJ, Gough F, Lemmertz H, Delaney EL, McKinley JM, Graham C, Leahy PG, Dunphy NP, Mullally G (2021) End-of-life alternatives for wind turbine blades: sustainability indices based on the UN sustainable development goals. Resour Conserv Recycl 171:105642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105642
Delaney EL, McKinley JM, Megarry W, Graham C, Leahy PG, Bank LC, Gentry R (2021) An integrated geospatial approach for repurposing wind turbine blades. Resour Conserv Recycl 170:105601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105601
Deutsches Bundesgesetz: Gesetz zur Einsparung von Energie und zur Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien zur Wärme- und Kälteerzeugung in Gebäuden: Gebäudeenergiegesetz (2020). Germany. https://www.bmwsb.bund.de/Webs/BMWSB/DE/themen/bauen/energieeffizientes-bauen-sanieren/gebaeudeenergiegesetz/gebaeudeenergiegesetz-node.html
Domke H, Rübben A (1977) Allgemeines Berechnungsverfahren für tragende Kunststoffkonstruktionen aus GF-UP-Mattenlaminaten. In: Bauingenieur (ed) Magazine 52, pp 205–210
DRIZORO S.A.U. (2022) Morteros para pasivación de armaduras y protección anticorrosión, productos para pasivación y protección del acero: EPD number: S-P-06121. Spain. https://environdec.com/library/epd6121. Accessed 6 July 2023
Ecocapsule (2023) About Ecocapsule. https://www.ecocapsule.sk/. Accessed 12 Aug 2023
Egger Sägewerk Brilon GmbH (2021) EGGER Timber: EPD-EGG-20200248-IBC1-EN. Austria. https://epd-online.com/EmbeddedEpdList/Detail?id=14656. Accessed 3 July 2023
EJOT SE & Co. KG, Market Unit Construction (2022) Self-tapping screws: EPD-EJO-20210153-IBK1-EN. Germany. https://epd-online.com/EmbeddedEpdList/Detail?id=15808. Accessed 5 July 2023
EU Standard EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 (2019) Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium
EU Standard EN 15978:2011 (2011) Sustainability of Construction Works. Assessment of Performance of Buildings. Calculation Method. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium
Fingersh L, Hand M, Laxson A (2006) Wind turbine design cost and scaling model. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40566.pdf. Accessed 2 February 2023
Fujita M, Masuda T (2014) Application of various NDT methods for the evaluation of building steel structures for reuse. Materials 7:7130–7144. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma7107130
Gentry TR, Al-Haddad T, Bank LC, Arias FR, Nagle A, Leahy P (2020) Structural analysis of a roof extracted from a wind turbine blade. J Archit Eng 26. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000440
Genzel E (2006) Zur Geschichte der Konstruktion und der Bemessung von Tragwerken aus faserverstärkten Kunststoffen 1950–1980. Doctoral thesis, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
Genzel E, Voigt P (2021) More than concrete. Heinz Isler’s projects in glass fiber reinforced plastics. In: Candela F, Isler H, Müther U (eds) Candela Isler Müther. Positions on shell construction. Birkhäuser, pp 118–125
Genzel E, Voigt P (2005) Kunststoffbauten - Teil 1: Die Pioniere, 1st edn. Bauhaus-Univ. Univ.-Verl, Weimar
Gopalraj SK, Kärki T (2020) A review on the recycling of waste carbon fibre/glass fibre-reinforced composites: fibre recovery, properties and life-cycle analysis. SN Appl Sci 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2195-4
Griffith DT (2013) The SNL100–01 Blade: carbon design studies for the Sandia 100-meter Blade: SAND2013–1178
Grygierek K, Ferdyn-Grygierek J, Gumińska A, Baran Ł, Barwa M, Czerw K, Gowik P, Makselan K, Potyka K, Psikuta A (2020) Energy and environmental analysis of single-family houses located in Poland. Energies 13:2740. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13112740
Hechler J (2019) Optimization of the dismantling process of wind turbine blades from offshore wind farms during decommissioning. Master’s thesis, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
Henao Y, Nagle A, Gentry R, Bank LC, Al-Haddad T (2022) Comparative lifecycle analysis between wind turbine blades repurposed as energy transmission poles and conventional steel poles. Zenodo
Hermansson F, Ekvall T, Janssen M, Svanström M (2022) Allocation in recycling of composites - the case of life cycle assessment of products from carbon fiber composites. Int J Life Cycle Assess 27:419–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02039-8
Hilti Aktiengesellschaft (2022) Hilti HIT-HY 200-R V3: EPD-HIL-20220118-IBA1-EN. Liechtenstein. epd-online.com/EmbeddedEpdList/Detail?id=15684. Accessed 15 July 2023
Hopkinson P, Chen H-M, Zhou K, Wang Y, Lam D (2019) Recovery and reuse of structural products from end-of-life buildings. Proc Inst Civ Eng - Eng Sustain 172:119–128. https://doi.org/10.1680/jensu.18.00007
Hoxha E, Passer A, Saade MRM, Trigaux D, Shuttleworth A, Pittau F, Allacker K, Habert G (2020) Biogenic carbon in buildings: a critical overview of LCA methods. Build Cities 1:504–524. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.46
ISO Standard No. 14040:2006 (2006) Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html. Accessed 20 June 2023
ISO Standard No. 14044:2006 (2006) Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirement and guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html. Accessed 20 June 2023
Jensen JP, Skelton K (2018) Wind turbine blade recycling: experiences, challenges and possibilities in a circular economy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 97:165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.08.041
Johst P, Kucher M, Bühl M, Schulz P, Kupfer R, Schilling L, Santos RM, Carneiro C, Voigt P, Modler N, Böhm R (2023a) Identification and environmental assessments for different scenarios of repurposed decommissioned wind turbine blades. Mater Circ Econ 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-023-00085-7
Johst P, Kucher M, Schulz P, Knorr A, Kupfer R, Böhm R (2023b) Identification of circular eco-subsystems for end-of-life aviation composite components based on a systematized R6-strategy 2526:12055. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2526/1/012055
Jonkman J, Butterfield S, Musial W, Scott G (2009) Definition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore system development: technical report NREL/TP-500–38060. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/38060.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2023
Joustra J, Flipsen B, Balkenende R (2021) Structural reuse of wind turbine blades through segmentation. Compos Part C: Open Access 5:100137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomc.2021.100137
Kalkanis K, Psomopoulos CS, Kaminaris S, Ioannidis G, Pachos P (2019) Wind turbine blade composite materials - end of life treatment methods. Energy Procedia 157:1136–1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.281
Krahwinkel M, Gehmert C (2011) Bemessung von tragenden Bauteilen aus Kunststoffen im Bauwesen - die neue BÜV-Empfehlung TKB (2010–08). In: Bautechnik 88 (ed) Heft 6, pp 362–372
Kucher M, Johst P, Lizaranzu M, Lahuerta F, Böhm R (2023) A micromechanical modeling approach for the estimation of the weathering-induced degradation of wind turbine blades. Mater Circ Econ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-023-00088-4
Kumar V, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2015) Life cycle assessment of residential buildings: a case study in Canada:1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1107700
Kupfer R, Schilling L, Spitzer S, Zichner M, Gude M (2022) Neutral lightweight engineering: a holistic approach towards sustainability driven engineering. Discov Sustain 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00084-9
Lahuerta F, Gesto D, Prieto C, Johst P, Kucher M, Mozas E, Gracia O, Böhm R, Bielsa J (2023) Decommissioning inventory for wind turbine blades installed until 2022 in Europe. Mater Circ Econ 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-023-00084-8
Larsen K (2009) Recycling wind turbine blades. Renew Energy Focus 9:70–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1755-0084(09)70045-6
LIP Bygningsartikler A/S (2021) Environmental product declaration for LIP wall plasters: EPD number: S-P-04248. Denmark. https://environdec.com/library/epd4248. Accessed 15 July 2023
Liu P, Barlow CY (2017) Wind turbine blade waste in 2050. Waste Manag 62:229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.02.007
Löffler M (2022) Test: Eine Nacht im Wohn-Wunder Tiny Haus. https://www.fraenkischertag.de/lokales/kronach/wohnen-bauen/landkreis-kronach-wie-es-sich-in-einem-tiny-haus-lebt-art-162017. Accessed 13 Aug 2023
Marsh G (2017) What’s to be done with ‘spent’ wind turbine blades? Renew Energy Focus 22–23:20–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ref.2017.10.002
McDonald A, Bank L, Kiernicki C, Bermek M, Zhang Z, Poff A, Kakkad S, Lau E, Arias F, Gentry R (2021) Re-Wind Design Catalog Fall 2021. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b324c409772ae52fecb6698/t/61e95d5f4ef3ad0d5eddd595/1642683746379/Re-Wind+Design+Catalog+Fall+2021+Nov+12+2021+%28low+res%29.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2023
Meesenburg Großhandel KG (2023) blaugelb insulation panel EPS: EPD-MEN-20230040-IBE1-EN. Germany. https://epd-online.com/EmbeddedEpdList/Detail?id=18716. Accessed 17 Aug 2023
Mishnaevsky L, Branner K, Petersen HN, Beauson J, McGugan M, Sørensen BF (2017) Materials for wind turbine blades: an overview. Materials 10:1285. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10111285
Nagle AJ, Mullally G, Leahy PG, Dunphy NP (2022) Life cycle assessment of the use of decommissioned wind blades in second life applications. J Environ Manage 302:113994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113994
Petersen AK, Solberg B (2005) Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between wood products and alternative materials: a review of micro-level analyses from Norway and Sweden. Forest Policy Econ 7:249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00063-7
Potting J, Hekkert M, Worrell E, Hanemaaijer A (2017) Circular Economy: Measuring innovation in the product chain. https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-2016-circular-economy-measuring-innovation-in-product-chains-2544.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2023
Puck A, Kopp J, Knops M (2002) Guidelines for the determination of the parameters in Puck’s action plane strength criterion. Compos Sci Technol 62:371–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-3538(01)00202-0
Resor BR (2013) Definition of a 5MW/61.5m wind turbine blade reference model: SANDIA REPORT SAND2013–2569
Ruane K, Zhang Z, Nagle A, Huynh A, Alshannaq A, McDonald A, Leahy P, Soutsos M, McKinley J, Gentry R, Bank L (2022) Material and structural characterization of a wind turbine blade for use as a bridge girder. Transp Res Rec 2676:354–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221083619
Ruane K, Soutsos M, Huynh A, Zhang Z, Nagle A, McDonald K, Gentry TR, Leahy P, Bank LC (2023) Construction and cost analysis of bladebridges made from decommissioned FRP wind turbine blades. Sustainability 15:3366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043366
Saechische Bauordnung (2016) SaechsBO. Saxony, Germany. S. https://www.revosax.sachsen.de/vorschrift/1779-SaechsBO
Sayer F, Buerkner F, Blunk M, van Wingerde AM, Busmann HG, Seifert H (2009) Influence of loads and environmental conditions on material properties over the service life of rotor blades. DEWI-Magazin
Schau EM, Niemelä EP, Niemelä AJ, Alencar Gavric TA, Šušteršič I (2022) Life cycle assessment benchmark for wooden buildings in Europe. In: Klos ZS (ed) Towards a sustainable future - life cycle management: challenges and prospects. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, pp 143–154
Schenk D, Amiri A (2022) Life cycle energy analysis of residential wooden buildings versus concrete and steel buildings: a review. Front Built Environ 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2022.975071
Schmid M, Ramon N, Dierckx A, Wegman T (2020) WindEurope-accelerating-wind-turbine-blade-circularity. https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/about-wind/reports/WindEurope-Accelerating-wind-turbine-blade-circularity.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2023
Schürmann H (2007) Konstruieren mit Faser-Kunststoff-Verbunden: Mit 39 Tabellen, 2nd edn. VDI-/Buch]. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Stepien A, Piotrowski JZ, Munik S, Balonis M, Kwiatkowska M, Krechowicz M (2022) Sustainable construction—technological aspects of ecological wooden buildings. Energies 15:8823. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15238823
Stergiou V, Konstantopoulos G, Charitidis CA (2022) Carbon fiber reinforced plastics in space: life cycle assessment towards improved sustainability of space vehicles. J Compos Sci 6:144. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs6050144
Suhail R, Chen J-F, Gentry TR, Tasistro-Hart B, Xue Y, Bank LC (2019) Analysis and design of a pedestrian bridge with decommissioned FRP windblades and concrete. Fiber Reinforced Polymers in Reinforced Concrete Structures FRPRCS14
Tasistro-Hart B, Al-Haddad T, Bank LC, Gentry R (2019) Reconstruction of wind turbine blade geometry and internal structure from point cloud data. In: Cho YK, Leite F, Behzadan A, Wang C (eds) Computing in civil engineering 2019. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp 130–137
The Re-Wind Network (2023) Repurposing wind blades: driving innovation in wind farm decommissioning. https://www.re-wind.info/. Accessed 19 Jan 2023
UNDP (2023) Sustainable Development Goals | United Nations Development Programme: The SDGS in Action. https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6f2r1cexgAMV5JqDBx3qywhtEAAYASAAEgKCYfD_BwE. Accessed 28 July 2023
UPM Plywood Oy (2021) WISA Spruce plywood, uncoated: EPD number: S-P-04168. Finland. https://environdec.com/library/epd4168. Accessed 4 July 2023
Vitra International AG (2013) Diogene: Renzo Piano. https://www.vitra.com/de-de/about-vitra/campus/architecture/architecture-diogene. Accessed 12 Aug 2023
Vo Dong PA, Azzaro-Pantel C, Cadene A-L (2018) Economic and environmental assessment of recovery and disposal pathways for CFRP waste management. Resour Conserv Recycl 133:63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.024
Voigt P (2007) Die Pionierphase des Bauens mit glasfaserverstärkten Kunststoffen (GFK) 1942 bis 1980. Doctoral thesis, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar
Wings for Living (2023) WINGS FOR LIVING - Designermöbel aus recycelten Windkraftanlagen. https://wings-for-living.de/. Accessed 28 Jan 2023
Witten E, Mathes V (2019) The market for glass fibre reinforced plastics (GRP) in 2019: market developments, trends, outlooks and challenges. https://www.avk-tv.de/files/20190911_avk_market_report_e_2019_final.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2023
Wu M, Sadhukhan J, Murphy R, Bharadwaj U, Cui X (2023) A novel life cycle assessment and life cycle costing framework for carbon fibre-reinforced composite materials in the aviation industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess 28:566–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02164-y
Yadav M, Agarwal M (2021) Biobased building materials for sustainable future: an overview. Mater Today: Proc 43:2895–2902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.165
Zhang J, Chevali VS, Wang H, Wang C-H (2020) Current status of carbon fibre and carbon fibre composites recycling. Compos Part B: Eng 193:108053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108053
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank BAKU — Bauen mit Kuntstoffen (https://kunststoffbauten.de/) for the architectural design of the 5MW house.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The study has been performed within the HORIZON-CL4-2021-RESILIENCE-01 project “European recycling and circularity in large composite components (EuReComp),” called “A Digitized, Resource-Efficient and Resilient Industry 2021,” HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions, Contract Number 101058089. The publication was funded by the Open Access Publication Funds of the HTWK Leipzig.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The contributions of PJ and KC to this study are of equal value. Therefore, joint first authorship is declared. The authors PJ and DB carried out the conceptualization of the study. The design concept of the 5 MW house was carried out by PJ, PV, and MK. Data collection for the finite element analysis and LCA were performed by KC, PJ, and MK. The finite element analysis was conducted by WZ and interpreted by WZ, PJ, and MK. The LCA was carried out and interpreted by KC. The manuscript was written by PJ, KC, and MK, while WZ, PV, DB, EK, and RB reviewed critically. Supervision was performed by EK and RB. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing of Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Disclaimer
Views and opinions expressed are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or HADEA. Neither the European Union nor HADEA can be held responsible for them.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix
Appendix
Please see Fig. 13.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Johst, P., Chatzipanagiotou, KR., Kucher, M. et al. Concept and Life Cycle Assessment of a Tiny House Made from Root Section Structures of a Decommissioned Large-Scale Wind Turbine Blade as a Repurposed Application. Mater Circ Econ 6, 5 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-023-00093-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-023-00093-7