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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- 72 -180,000160,000140,000120,000Energy (GJ)100,00080,00060,00040,00020,0000Concrete Steel Timber Timber+Building TypeLandfillReutilisationFigure 6.12: Comparison between total primary energy use of landfilling and reutilisation scenariosTable 6.8: Total primary energy consumption of each building’s life cycle for landfilling and reutilisationscenariosBuilding type Landfilling [GJ] Reutilisation [GJ]Concrete 153,288 152,464Steel 159,822 155,306Timber 157,696 153,022Timber + 149,008 142,7138,0007,0006,000GWP (t CO2 eq.)5,0004,0003,0002,0001,0000Concrete Steel Timber Timber+Building TypeLandfillReutilisationFigure 6.13: Comparison between total GWP (tonnes CO 2 equivalent) of landfilling and reutilisationscenarios
- 73 -Table 6.9: Total GWP of each building’s life cycle for landfilling and reutilisation scenariosBuilding type Landfilling [t CO 2 eq.] Reutilisation [t CO 2 eq.]Concrete 6,794 6,782Steel 6,883 6,567Timber 5,982 6,010Timber + 5,276 5,330The total primary energy use of all four buildings was lower in the reutilisation scenarios, assome energy was generated from wooden materials. It should again be noted that the landfillresults could change in the future if landfill gas capture rates increase, and if energy fromlandfill gas is able to be calculated. The GWP results are more varied than the energy useresults. As with energy, the GWP impacts of the Steel and Concrete buildings are reducedwhen material reutilisation is chosen as an end of life option. However, for the Timber andTimberPlus buildings the results indicate that the benefit as a result of carbon storage inlandfills (landfill scenario) is very slightly greater than the benefit from offsetting emissionsfrom other energy sources (reutilisation scenario).The small difference in both primary energy use and GWP for the Concrete building isbecause concrete is recycled into aggregate which is a very low embodied energy product.The reason that the Steel building fares much better in the reutilisation scenario can beattributed largely to the recycling of steel (avoiding some primary steel, which has a very highembodied energy).The Concrete building has the lowest difference in energy and GWP between the twoscenarios, with the reutilisation scenario showing a 0.5% and 0.2% saving respectively. TheTimberPlus building has the greatest energy saving in the reutilisation scenario, with a 4.2%reduction, because it has a large quantity of wood waste for combustion. The Steel buildinghas the greatest reduction in GWP, with a 4.6% reduction; again this is due to the highembodied energy of steel, which is recycled into other steel products, thus avoidingproduction of a large quantity of virgin steel. The reutilisation scenario for all buildings showsa reduction in total energy, as the energy recovery from combusting the wood has beensubtracted from the total energy use of the buildings.
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 and 12:
- 11 -Chapter 7Chapter 8Chapter 9Ch
Page 13 and 14:
- 13 -An alternative end-of-life sc
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: - 71 -Figure 6.10: Total embodied e
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?