Process Data set: TD65DRA100 tubular frame door with flush glazing (en) en
Process information
| Key Data Set Information | |
| Location | DE |
| Geographical representativeness description | European Union |
| Reference year | 2024 |
| Name |
|
| Technical purpose of product or process | The flexible width and height of the TD65DRA100 tubular frame door with flush glazing make it easy to create architectural designs for open building structures. The tubular frame door with flush glazing elements are quick to install and reconfigure. It is possible to completely reposition door elements without any material waste, or to replace them with other partition elements. Due to its modular design, the tubular frame door element can be reassembled, dismantled and extended. Thus, it is suitable for circular construction. |
| General comment on data set | This is a representative EPD for 1 m² of TD65DRA100 tubular frame door with flush glazing, produced by Goldbach Kirchner raumconcepte GmbH. The weight per m² is 49 kg including the door frame. The frame size is based on the average door element. The TD65DRA100 consists of a 100 mm tubular door leaf set in an aluminum frame with a face width of 34/64 mm. The aluminum frame is secured to the internal load-bearing steel profiles using screws. With a frame thickness of 100 mm, it is compatible with all Goldbach Kirchner partition wall systems. The design is characterized by high flexibility, reusability, and the ability to separate materials by type. Materialm.-% of materialglass52.5aluminium frame34.6steel profiles7.0door hardware2.5sealing<1gypsum<1screws<1steel parts<1fleece<1glue<1 The most important, tested-for technical properties for the product have been laid out in the following table. PropertyUnitDeclared valueStandardFrame thicknessmm100 Airborne sound insulation Rw,p38 - 47 dBDIN EN ISO 140-3 / DIN EN ISO 717-1Structural strength DIN 4103-1:2015-06 The quality level of geographical representativeness can be considered “good”. The quality level of technical representativeness can be considered “good”. The quality level of time representativeness can also be regarded as “good”. The overall data quality for this EPD can, therefore, be described as “good”. All relevant process-specific data were collected during data collection. In all possible cases, primary data from customers was used, which has very good data quality because it comes directly from the source. In addition, secondary data from the ecoinvent database (2022, version 3.9.1) was used when no primary data could be supplied. The database is checked regularly and, therefore, meets the requirements of DIN EN ISO 14040/44 (background data not older than 10 years). The background data meets the requirements of EN 15804+A2. The quantities of raw materials, consumables and supplies used and the energy consumption were recorded and averaged over the entire operating year. The general rule that specific data from certain production processes or average data derived from certain processes must take precedence when calculating an EPD or LCA was adhered to. Data for processes over which the manufacturer has no influence were assigned to generic data/scenarios. When selecting these, care was taken to always choose the data set/scenario that most realistically represents the processes. A payload factor of 50 percent was used for all truck transports, which in fact corresponds to a full delivery and empty return trip. A data set for a non-specific truck was used for the supplier transportation. As the finalized product is delivered to the clients by internal logistics the transport in A4 is modelled using a >32t, EURO6 truck, which corresponds to the trucks used. Due to multiple locations being visited by the same truck daily, it never returns empty, picking up reusable packaging material. This has not been considered in the LCA, where a 50% load and an empty return have been assumed. As the construction of the product at the construction site is carried out by handheld power tools, no input has been created for A5. The demolition at end-of-life is assumed to be carried out manually, and therefore no energy consumption has been considered for C1. For the end-of-life scenario, it is assumed that the different material fractions of the product can be separated and treated individually. Therefore, material-specific end-of-life scenarios based on the default assumptions of EN 17213 were applied. Metal components: 95% recycling and 5% landfill. Plastic components: 95% incineration with energy recovery and 5% landfill. Glass components: 70% recycling and 30% landfill. |
| Copyright | Yes |
| Owner of data set | |
| Quantitative reference | |
| Reference flow(s) | |
| Biogenic carbon content | |
| Time representativeness | |
| Data set valid until | 2031 |
| Time representativeness description | All process-specific data was collected for the period between the 01.01.2024 and the 31.12.2024. The quantities of raw materials, consumables and supplies used and the energy consumption were recorded and averaged over the entire 2024 operating year. The reference area is Germany. |
| Technological representativeness | |
| Technology description including background system | The door system is assembled with power tools at the construction site. |
| Flow diagram(s) or picture(s) | |
Modelling and validation
Administrative information
Environmental indicators