Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of container-based single-family housing in Canada: A case study

Dara, Chinyere; Hachem-Vermette, Caroline; Assefa, Getachew

doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106332

Cited by 48 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on the future climate trends pointed out in the previous section, it can be stated that the recommended promising measures are the appropriate utilization of the internal gains and the passive solar direct gain by using low mass in Rome and the prevention of the occasional overheating risk in both Stockholm and Berlin. 4 27,000 29,800 43,000 East façade installation [kWh] 5 26,700 29,000 40,400 West façade installation [kWh] 5 28,000 30,700 42,100…”

Section: Proposed Generic Design Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note: 1 Estimation is made using the data from national residential building electricity statistics in 2015 [42]; 2 Optimal angles have been achieved through [38]; 3 The values are calculated for 100% offset ratio and 86% system losses factor for the photovoltaic. The perfect sun hours are 6 h for Stockholm, 8 h for Berlin, and 9 h for Rome through [43]; 4 Roof installed area is assumed with 30 m 2 ; 5 East/west installed area is assumed with 60 m 2 . Figure 8.…”

Section: Proposed Generic Design Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The existing studies stated that the reuse of containers for buildings results into a significant decrease in embodied energy when compared with conventional buildings. For instance, the life cycle analysis (LCA) associated with repurposing upcycled containers into a modular house indicates that the life cycle impacts have only 3% difference, compared with traditional lightwood cases, over the 50 years lifespan and that the maximum life cycle cost benefits can be achieved through energy-efficient measures [4]. It shows that upcycling of a container results in 46 tons of CO 2 eq.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It shows that upcycling of a container results in 46 tons of CO 2 eq. as avoided environmental impacts in Canada [4]. Similarly, Islam et al [5] report the global warming potential (GWP) impact of the container house at about 14.2 kg CO 2 eq./m 2 /year, over the whole life cycle, which is smaller than that for timber and concrete houses at 22.3 and 38 CO 2 eq./m 2 /year, respectively [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Exploring the Potential of Climate-Adaptive Container Building Design under Future Climates Scenarios in Three Different Climate Zones

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The deployment of containers as building modules has grown in popularity over the past years due to their inherent strength, modular construction, and relatively low cost. The upcycled container architecture is being accepted since it is more eco-friendly than using the traditional building materials with intensive carbon footprint. Moreover, owing to the unquestionable urgency of climate change, existing climate-adaptive design strategies may no longer respond effectively as they are supposed to work in the previous passive design. Therefore, this paper explores the conceptual design for an upcycled shipping container building, which is designed as a carbon-smart modular living solution to a single family house under three design scenarios, related to cold, temperate, and hot–humid climatic zones, respectively. The extra feature of future climate adaption has been added by assessing the projected future climate data with the ASHRAE Standard 55 and Current Handbook of Fundamentals Comfort Model. Compared with the conventional design, Rome would gradually face more failures in conventional climate-adaptive design measures in the coming 60 years, as the growing trends in both cooling and dehumidification demand. Consequently, the appropriate utilization of internal heat gains are proposed to be the most promising measure, followed by the measure of windows sun shading and passive solar direct gain by using low mass, in the upcoming future in Rome. Future climate projection further shows different results in Berlin and Stockholm, where the special attention is around the occasional overheating risk towards the design goal of future thermal comfort.

show abstract

Section: Proposed Generic Design Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Proposed Generic Design Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exploring the Potential of Climate-Adaptive Container Building Design under Future Climates Scenarios in Three Different Climate Zones

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Liang et al [32] applied this methodology to a hypothetical case study of a highrise mass timber building compared to a concrete baseline building, and concluded that the total life-cycle cost (TLCC) was dominated by the construction cost, and were also sensitive to variations of study period and discount rate. Several recent studies explored the inclusion of LCA and LCCA on mass timber and other buildings [21,[33][34][35], but more efforts are necessary to fully understand the environmental and economic impacts of U.S. mass timber buildings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building: A Case Study in Pacific Northwestern United States

Liang

Bergman

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global construction industry has a huge influence on world primary energy consumption, spending, and greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions. To better understand these factors for mass timber construction, this work quantified the life cycle environmental and economic performances of a high-rise mass timber building in U.S. Pacific Northwest region through the use of life-cycle assessment (LCA) and life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). Using the TRACI impact category method, the cradle-to-grave LCA results showed better environmental performances for the mass timber building relative to conventional concrete building, with 3153 kg CO2-eq per m2 floor area compared to 3203 CO2-eq per m2 floor area, respectively. Over 90% of GHGs emissions occur at the operational stage with a 60-year study period. The end-of-life recycling of mass timber could provide carbon offset of 364 kg CO2-eq per m2 floor that lowers the GHG emissions of the mass timber building to a total 12% lower GHGs emissions than concrete building. The LCCA results showed that mass timber building had total life cycle cost of $3976 per m2 floor area that was 9.6% higher than concrete building, driven mainly by upfront construction costs related to the mass timber material. Uncertainty analysis of mass timber product pricing provided a pathway for builders to make mass timber buildings cost competitive. The integration of LCA and LCCA on mass timber building study can contribute more information to the decision makers such as building developers and policymakers.

show abstract

Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of a run‐of‐the‐river type hydroelectricity power plant in Turkey

Bor

Üçtuğ

2021

Env Prog and Sustain Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The environmental and economic life cycle assessment of a real-life run-of-the-river type hydroelectricity power plant in Turkey has been performed by considering the following stages: raw material acquisition, construction (including waste management), and transportation. CCaLC2 software and CML2001 methodology were used to calculate six different environmental impacts, whereas the economic impact was chosen as the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Functional unit was 1 MWh of electricity generated. The environmental impacts were found to be on average 95% lower than those of the Turkish grid, and the LCOE was calculated as $58.4/MWh. This outcome is understandable considering the high share of fossil fuels, especially low-quality lignite, in Turkish electricity grid. The results were compared to those of a similar study conducted abroad and all the impacts were found to have the same order of magnitude, proving that this study is methodologically consistent with the literature. The main conclusion is that hydroelectricity produced by run-of-the-river type plants in Turkey is environmentally friendly and economically viable compared to grid electricity. This is the first study in Turkey on the life cycle impact analysis of hydroelectricity and one of the few studies that consider economic and environmental factors simultaneously.environmental impact analysis, hydroelectricity power plant, levelized cost of electricity, life cycle assessment, run-of-the-river

show abstract

Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of container-based single-family housing in Canada: A case study

Cited by 48 publications

References 35 publications

Exploring the Potential of Climate-Adaptive Container Building Design under Future Climates Scenarios in Three Different Climate Zones

Exploring the Potential of Climate-Adaptive Container Building Design under Future Climates Scenarios in Three Different Climate Zones

Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building: A Case Study in Pacific Northwestern United States

Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of a run‐of‐the‐river type hydroelectricity power plant in Turkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About