An environmental assessment of wood and steel reinforced concrete housing construction

Gerilla, Gloria P.; Teknomo, Kardi; Hokao, Kazunori

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.07.021

Cited by 164 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In delving more deeply into specific timber and concrete construction methods, Gerilla, Teknomo and Hokao (2007) found that a steel reinforced concrete house had higher environmental impact than a wood house; and using only solar energy for the operation phase would reduce impact by 73% for the wooden house and 70% for the steel reinforced concrete house. Börjesson and Gustavsson (2000) studied the embodied energy in a multi-storey building, comparing wood to concrete framed construction, and their results are similar: that concreteframed buildings cause higher emissions than the equivalent wood building.…”

Section: Applying the Materials To Specific Construction Methods And mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of floor construction on sloping sites: an analysis of cumulative energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions

Ding

Forsythe

2016

CEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to make environmentally aware decisions, there is growing interest in the comparative energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) performance of competing construction methods. Little research has been done concerning competing ground floor construction methods, especially given different site variables, such as slope and soil type. A life cycle assessment approach was adopted to analyse environmental impacts, including cumulative energy demand and GHG emissions for detached housing construction in Australia. Data was drawn from 24 case study housing projects, including 12 reinforced concrete and 12 suspended timber floor projects. The data presented in the paper compares cumulative energy demand, GHG and the constituent parts of competing construction methods. The findings indicate that the timber floors use/create significantly less cumulative energy demand and GHG emissions than concrete floors—approximately 2.1 to 2.7 times less energy and 2.3 to 2.9 times less GHG. These findings are limited to the site slope and foundation soil types identified in the paper. The main application of the work is in guidance concerning the lowest environmental impact options for detached housing construction.

show abstract

Section: Applying the Materials To Specific Construction Methods And mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of floor construction on sloping sites: an analysis of cumulative energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions

Ding

Forsythe

2016

CEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several previous studies have advocated the use of wood as a more sustainable and low-carbon construction material than conventional concrete and steel [34][35][36]. Buchanan and Levine claimed that, due to the considerably less energy-intensive manufacturing process of structural wood compared to other construction materials, wood structures tend to have considerably lower embodied carbon than buildings made with other construction materials, including brick, steel and concrete [34].…”

Section: Low-carbon Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation and Minimization of Embodied Carbon of Buildings: A Review

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building and construction is responsible for up to 30% of annual global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, commonly reported in carbon equivalent unit. Carbon emissions are incurred in all stages of a building's life cycle and are generally categorised into operating carbon and embodied carbon, each making varying contributions to the life cycle carbon depending on the building's characteristics. With recent advances in reducing the operating carbon of buildings, the available literature indicates a clear shift in attention towards investigating strategies to minimize embodied carbon. However, minimizing the embodied carbon of buildings is challenging and requires evaluating the effects of embodied carbon reduction strategies on the emissions incurred in different life cycle phases, as well as the operating carbon of the building. In this paper, the available literature on strategies for reducing the embodied carbon of buildings, as well as methods for estimating the embodied carbon of buildings, is reviewed and the strengths and weaknesses of each method are highlighted.

show abstract

“…The calculation was conducted in two steps: (1) based on the results from various studies on carbon emissions in the operations stage, the carbon flow vector was derived by matrix normalization; and (2) The sources of carbon emission data in the operations stage also come from previous studies. In addition, 40 kg CO 2 /m 2 ·year for wood and 47 kg CO 2 /m 2 ·year for concrete come from the study of Gerilla et al [24], 49 kg CO 2 /m 2 ·year for steel is calculated by 47 kg CO 2 /m 2 ·year with a multiply factor of 1.05, which is based on the assumption that thermal insulation property of steel is worse than that of concrete and wood by at least 5%. Furthermore, 21 kg CO 2 /m 2 ·year for steel comes from the study of Rossi et al [10].…”

Section: Matrix Normalizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gerilla et al unearthed that for a 150 m 2 single-family residence, the annual carbon emissions from wood and concrete structures in the operations stage were 1650 kgC and 1900 kgC, respectively, or 40 kg CO 2 /m 2 ·year and 47 kg CO 2 /m 2 ·year, respectively, upon further conversion [24]. Rossi et al believed that for a 50-year life-cycle, the carbon emissions from a steel structure in the operations stage were 1050 kg CO 2 /m 2 or 21 kg CO 2 /m 2 ·year [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation and Assessment of Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Emission Flows from Different Residential Structures

Wen

Jrade

2016

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:To explore the differences in carbon emissions over the whole life-cycle of different building structures, the published calculated carbon emissions from residential buildings in China and abroad were normalized. Embodied carbon emission flows, operations stage carbon emission flows, demolition and reclamation stage carbon emission flows and total life-cycle carbon emission flows from concrete, steel, and wood structures were obtained. This study is based on the theory of the social cost of carbon, with an adequately demonstrated social cost of carbon and social discount rate. Taking into consideration both static and dynamic situations and using a social discount rate of 3.5%, the total life-cycle carbon emission flows, absolute carbon emission and building carbon costs were calculated and assessed. The results indicated that concrete structures had the highest embodied carbon emission flows and negative carbon emission flows in the waste and reclamation stage. Wood structures that started the life-cycle with stored carbon had the lowest carbon emission flows in the operations stage and relatively high negative carbon emission flows in the reclamation stage. Wood structures present the smallest carbon footprints for residential buildings.

show abstract

An environmental assessment of wood and steel reinforced concrete housing construction

Cited by 164 publications

References 5 publications

A comparative study of floor construction on sloping sites: an analysis of cumulative energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions

A comparative study of floor construction on sloping sites: an analysis of cumulative energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions

Estimation and Minimization of Embodied Carbon of Buildings: A Review

Simulation and Assessment of Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Emission Flows from Different Residential Structures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About