Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- 12 -2 Executive SummaryThe Research Goals and Objectives for this project were set out in the Ministry of Agricultureand Forestry (MAF) RFP POR/7811, April 2007. The University of Canterbury respondedwith a collaborative research programme ‘to fill the information gap about what is the greatestamount of wood that can be used in the construction and fit-out of commercial, large-scalebuildings in New Zealand (and) …… to provide Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) informationabout the benefits of maximising the use of wood in sustainable buildings’.This research project modelled the performance of four similar office building designs –Concrete, Steel, Timber and TimberPlus – all based on an actual six-storey 4,200m 2 building,to investigate the influence of construction materials on life cycle energy use and globalwarming potential (GWP).All four buildings were designed for a 60 year lifetime, with very similar low operationalenergy consumption. The Concrete and Steel buildings employed conventional structuraldesign and construction methods. The Timber buildings were designed with an innovativepost-tensioned timber structure using laminated veneer lumber (LVL). The TimberPlus designfurther increased the use of timber in architectural features such as exterior cladding, windowsand ceilings. All timber materials are renewable and durable, sourced from sustainablymanaged forests. Predicted construction times for all four buildings are similar.The LCA study by Scion considered the full life cycle of the buildings including initialembodied energy of the materials, and maintenance, transport, operational energy and two endof-lifescenarios, where deconstructed materials were either landfilled or reutilised.Increasing the amount of timber in the buildings decreased the initial embodied energy andGWP of materials and also decreased the total energy consumption and GWP over the 60 yearlifetime. The TimberPlus design clearly had the lowest environmental impacts, whilst the Steelbuilding had the highest impacts. A significant benefit could be obtained in the Steel, Concreteand Timber buildings by replacing high embodied energy components (especially aluminiumwindows and louvres) with timber.The final destination of deconstruction waste at the end of the 60 year life-cycle is extremelyimportant. Landfilling of timber waste, with the permanent storage of most of the carbon inthe timber, was slightly more beneficial than burning of wood waste for energy. The benefits oflandfilling timber waste will increase as modern and future landfill construction andmanagement capture and utilise more of the methane generated by decomposition. Recyclingof steel and concrete is more beneficial than landfilling.It is important to note that looking at a single environmental indicator, such as GWP, couldlead to unintended outcomes. For example, for the TimberPlus building the landfilling scenariowould be slightly better in terms of climate change. However, looking at the energy resultsalongside the GWP results, the reutilisation scenario shows both an energy reutilisation benefit,as well as still being beneficial to climate change. Therefore, the use of multiple indicatorsmay be necessary to inform the environmental decision-making processes.
- 13 -An alternative end-of-life scenario which assumed permanent storage of carbon in woodmaterials showed that net total GWP for the materials in the TimberPlus building is negative,because the long-term storage of over 630 tonnes of carbon dioxide removed from theatmosphere more than cancels out all the greenhouse gases emitted in the manufacture of allthe other building materials. In this scenario, the TimberPlus building could be considered tobe ‘carbon-neutral’ for at least the first 12 years of its operation.With NZ-specific energy and GWP coefficients now available, a simple model can bedeveloped for assessing the energy and GWP impacts of individual buildings. This studyshows that the Green Star Office rating tool does not capture all the benefits of using morewood in buildings which are identified by the simple model or a full LCA study.Support of on-going research is essential to further develop the potential for Timber buildingsto be more widely used in NZ, with subsequent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
Page 1 and 2: Environmental Impacts ofMulti-Store
Page 5 and 6: ContentsGlossary...................
Page 7 and 8: 6.3.4.3 Maintenance related embodie
Page 9 and 10: - 9 -GlossaryCO 2 stored - refers t
Page 11: - 11 -Chapter 7Chapter 8Chapter 9Ch
Page 15 and 16: - 15 -designers and a shortage of b
Page 17 and 18: - 17 -• Ministry for the Environm
Page 19 and 20: - 19 -which it can be fashioned to
Page 21 and 22: - 21 -For fire safety, the New Zeal
Page 23 and 24: - 23 -buildings for low seismic are
Page 25 and 26: - 25 -4 The Buildings4.1 Constructi
Page 27 and 28: - 27 -the building. The basement le
Page 29 and 30: - 29 -4.3.2 Common Design Principle
Page 31 and 32: - 31 -Figure 4.5: South-west façad
Page 33 and 34: - 33 -the three longitudinal frames
Page 35 and 36: - 35 -4.3.5.2 Floor and RoofThe str
Page 37 and 38: - 37 -4.4 Multi-Storey Timber Build
Page 39 and 40: - 39 -Several different solutions h
Page 41 and 42: - 41 -5 Operational Energy5.1 Gener
Page 43 and 44: - 43 -Table 5.1: Simulation inputs
Page 45 and 46: - 45 -Table 5.3: Areas of office en
Page 47 and 48: - 47 -Modifying the design to achie
Page 49 and 50: - 49 -• Standards New Zealand (NZ
Page 51 and 52: - 51 -6 Life Cycle Assessment6.1 In
Page 53 and 54: - 53 -6.2.3.3 Impact AssessmentThe
Page 55 and 56: - 55 -6.3.2.2 System BoundariesThe
Page 57 and 58: - 57 -For more information see:http
Page 59 and 60: - 59 -6.3.3 Inventory Analysis6.3.3
Page 61 and 62: - 61 -Table 6.2: Net tonnes CO 2 eq
Page 63 and 64:
- 63 -Growing timber takes up CO 2
Page 65 and 66:
- 65 -6.3.4 Impact AssessmentTotal
Page 67 and 68:
- 67 -8000700060005000GWP (t CO2 eq
Page 69 and 70:
- 69 -As explained above, carbon st
Page 71 and 72:
- 71 -Figure 6.10: Total embodied e
Page 73 and 74:
- 73 -Table 6.9: Total GWP of each
Page 75 and 76:
- 75 -8,0007,0006,0005,000GWP (t CO
Page 77 and 78:
- 77 -45000400003500030000GWP (kg C
Page 79 and 80:
- 79 -assumed to be identical for t
Page 81 and 82:
- 81 -6.4.3.2 Green Star Recycling
Page 83 and 84:
- 83 -Table 6.16: Green Star result
Page 85 and 86:
- 85 -The contribution of initial e
Page 87 and 88:
- 87 -results, the reutilisation sc
Page 89 and 90:
- 89 -7.1.1 Platform and Balloon Co
Page 91 and 92:
- 91 -buildings has been analysed a
Page 93 and 94:
- 93 -Figure 7.5: Construction sche
Page 95 and 96:
- 95 -8.2 Source and Availability o
Page 97 and 98:
- 97 -It would be incorrect, howeve
Page 99 and 100:
- 99 -8.5 Additional Opportunities
Page 101 and 102:
- 101 -example, removal of CCA trea
Page 103 and 104:
- 103 -The Waste Minimisation Bill
Page 105 and 106:
- 105 -9 Discussion9.1 The Building
Page 107 and 108:
- 107 -• The buildings tend to be
Page 109 and 110:
- 109 -9.4.3 Data Sets9.4.3.1 Gener
Page 111 and 112:
- 111 -The following assessment wil
Page 113 and 114:
- 113 -Table 9.1. GWP coefficients
Page 115 and 116:
- 115 -Figure 9.2 shows that the ne
Page 117 and 118:
- 117 -placing and retaining materi
Page 119 and 120:
- 119 -Net CO 2 emissions - that is
Page 121 and 122:
- 121 -The LVL specified for the st
Page 123 and 124:
- 123 -10 ConclusionsThe following
Page 125 and 126:
- 125 -building types, instead subs
Page 127 and 128:
- 127 -In summary, reutilisation sh
Page 129 and 130:
- 129 -• What is the ranking of t
Page 131 and 132:
- 131 -• What is the comparison i
Page 133 and 134:
- 133 -Connell Wagner (2007): Combu
Page 135 and 136:
- 135 -Suzuki, Michiya, and Tatsuo
Page 137 and 138:
- 137 -C O N C R E T E B U I L D I
Page 139 and 140:
- 139 -S T E E L B U I L D I N Gm m
Page 141 and 142:
- 141 -T I M B E R B U I L D I N Gm
Page 143 and 144:
- 143 -T I M B E R B U I L D I N G
Page 145 and 146:
- 145 -T Exterior Wall Cladding 581
Page 147 and 148:
- 147 -Appendix B. Life times of bu
Page 149 and 150:
- 149 -Appendix D: Transport scenar
Page 154 and 155:
- 151 -Appendix F: Warren and Mahon
Page 156 and 157:
Timber Plus ProjectSummary of the T
Page 158 and 159:
Timber Plus ProjectGreen Star Ratin
Page 160 and 161:
Timber Plus ProjectVolatile Organic
Page 162 and 163:
Timber Plus ProjectThe Forest Stewa
Page 164 and 165:
Timber Plus ProjectStain and Clear
Page 166 and 167:
Timber Plus ProjectINTERIOR WALL CL
Page 168 and 169:
Timber Plus ProjectWINDOW REVEALSMa
Page 170 and 171:
Timber Plus ProjectSOFFIT FRAMINGMa
Page 172 and 173:
Timber Plus ProjectEXTERIOR WALL CL
Page 174 and 175:
Timber Plus ProjectAdditional Oppor
Page 176 and 177:
Appendix AResene Expected Paint Sys
Page 178 and 179:
- 152 -Appendix G: Green Star Asses
Page 180 and 181:
New Zealand Forest Research Institu
Page 182 and 183:
Executive SummaryA common building
Page 184 and 185:
1 IntroductionA common building des
Page 186 and 187:
Timber pluso The same assumptions a
Page 188 and 189:
Table 1-1-1: Weightings in Green St
Page 190 and 191:
The science behind LCA is still dev
Page 192 and 193:
In comparison the LCA results have
Page 194 and 195:
All four buildings in this research
Page 196 and 197:
1.4 Further WorkThe difficulty in m
show all

Environmental Impacts of Multi-Storey Buildings Using Different ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?