Agosto 2017 vol. 3 num. 6 - SBDS + ISSD 2017

Artigo Completo - Open Access.

Idioma principal

Carbon footprint of pre-fabricated wood buildings

Padilla-Rivera, Alejandro ; Balnchet, Pierre ;

Artigo Completo:

This study reports on a study examining the potential of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the building sector by substituting steel and concrete building structures with timber structures, as well as traditional construction for prefabricated methods. A multi-storey timber residential building in Quebec City (Canada) was chosen as a baseline scenario. This building has been constructed according to the concept of green environmental protection and sustainable development. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach is applied to compare the climate change impact (CC) of timber structures. In this scenario of this research, material production and construction (assembly, waste management and transportation) were assessed. Additionally, a LCA that comprises eight actions divided in four low carbon strategies, including low carbon materials, material minimization, reuse and recycle materials and adoption of local sources and use of biofuels were evaluated. The results of this study confirm the positive effect using prefabricated approach in buildings as an alternative construction method based on timber-frame-materials in Quebec. By using the CO2 emissions as global indicator, the CC saving per m2 floor area in baseline scenario produces up to 25% fewer emissions than traditional buildings. If the benefits of low carbon strategies are included, the timber structures can cause up 38% lower CC than the original baseline scenario. The analysis suggests that CO2 emissions reduction in the construction of buildings as climate change mitigation is perfectly feasible by following different working lines. We concluded that the four strategies implemented have an environmental benefit in reducing greenhouse gases emissions. The reuse wood waste into production of particleboard has the greatest environmental benefit when considering temporary carbon storage.

Artigo Completo:

Download (PDF)

Palavras-chave: Timber structures, carbon reduction strategies, life cycle assessment, climate change, carbon footprint,

Palavras-chave:

DOI: 10.5151/sbds-issd-2017-015

Referências bibliográficas
  • [1] Aye, Lu et al. 2012. “Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Analysis of Prefabricated Reusable Building Modules.” Energy and Buildings 47(APRIL 2012): 159– 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011049 (February 2, 2016).
  • [2] Buchanan, Andrew H., and Brian G. Honey. 1994. “Energy and Carbon Dioxide Implications of Building Construction.” Energy and Buildings 20(3): 205–17. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0378778894900248 (April 6, 2017).
  • [3] Canadian Wood Council (CWC). 2010. Sustainability and Life Cycle Analysis for Residential Buildings. Quebec.
  • [4] Cao, Xinying, Xiaodong Li, Yimin Zhu, and Zhihui Zhang. 2015. “A Comparative Study of Environmental Performance between Prefabricated and Traditional Residential Buildings in China.” Journal of Cleaner Production 109: 131–43. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615004953 (December 28, 2015).
  • [5] Cellura, Maurizio, Francesco Guarino, Sonia Longo, and Marina Mistretta. 2014. “Energy Life-Cycle Approach in Net Zero Energy Buildings Balance: Operation and Embodied Energy of an Italian Case Study.” Energy and Buildings 72: 371–81. http://www.sciencedirect.com.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/science/article/pii/S0378778813008633 (May 25, 2017).
  • [6] Dahlstrøm, Oddbjørn, Kari Sørnes, Silje Tveit Eriksen, and Edgar G. Hertwich. 2012. “Life Cycle Assessment of a Single-Family Residence Built to Either Conventionalor Passive House Standard.” Energy and Buildings 54: 470–79. http://www.sciencedirect.com.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/science/article/pii/S037877881200374X (May 25, 2017).
  • [7] Dixit, Manish K., Charles H. Culp, and Jose L. Fernández-Solís. 2013. “System Boundary for Embodied Energy in Buildings: A Conceptual Model for Definition.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 21: 153–64. http://www.sciencedirect.com.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/science/article/pii/S1364032112007423 (April 6, 2017).
  • [8] Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA). 2012. “Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) TRACI Version 2.1 User’s Guide.”
  • [9] Fragkias, Michail, José Lobo, Deborah Strumsky, and Karen C Seto. 2013. “Does Size Matter? Scaling of CO2 Emissions and U.S. Urban Areas.” PLoS ONE 8(6). http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064727&type=printable (April 28, 2017).
  • [10] González, María Jesús, and Justo García Navarro. 2006. “Assessment of the Decrease of CO2 Emissions in the Construction Field through the Selection of Materials: Practical Case Study of Three Houses of Low Environmental Impact.” Building and Environment 41(7): 902–9. http://www.sciencedirect.com.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/scienc
  • [11] e/article/pii/S036013230500140X?np=y&npKey=f8826688e172ec7050e0daf4821f4c94c2cc0b149c5a83b29c9e8ff57ccc3e80 (October 11, 2016).
  • [12] Graham, Peter et al. 2014. Buildings. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA:
  • [13] Volker Krey. Gustavsson, Leif, and Roger Sathre. 2011. “Energy and CO2 Analysis of Wood Substitution in Construction.” Climatic Change 105(1–2): 129–53. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-010-9876-8 (September 29, 2016).
  • [14] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2006. ISO 14040:2006 - Environmental Management -- Life Cycle Assessment -- Principles and Framework. http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=37456.
  • [15] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. CLIMATE CHANGE 2001: THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS. Cambridge, U.K. .
  • [16] Jaillon, Lara, and C.S. Poon. 2014. “Life Cycle Design and Prefabrication in Buildings: A Review and Case Studies in Hong Kong.” Automation in Construction 39: 195–202.
  • [17] Malmqvist, Tove et al. 2011. “Life Cycle Assessment in Buildings: The ENSLIC Simplified Method and Guidelines.” Energy 36(4): 1900–1907. http://www.sciencedirect.com.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/science/article/pii/S0360544210001453 (May 25, 2017).
  • [18] Mao, Chao, Qiping Shen, Liyin Shen, and Liyaning Tang. 2013. “Comparative Study of Greenhouse Gas Emissions between off-Site Prefabrication and Conventional Construction Methods: Two Case Studies of Residential Projects.” Energy and Buildings 66: 165–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.033 (October 27, 2016).
  • [19] Nässén, Jonas, Fredrik Hedenus, Sten Karlsson, and John Holmberg. 2012. “Concrete vs. Wood in Buildings - An Energy System Approach.” Building and Environment 51: 361–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.11.011 (April 26, 2017).
  • [20] Oka, Tatsuo, Michiya Suzuki, and Tetsuo Konnya. 1993. “The Estimation of Energy Consumption and Amount of Pollutants due to the Construction of Buildings.” Energy and Buildings 19(4): 303–11. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/037877889390016N (April 6, 2017).
  • [21] Paya-Marin, M.A., J. Lim, and B. Sengupta. 2013. “Life-Cycle Energy Analysis of a Modular/Off-Site Building School.” American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture 1(3): 59–63. http://pubs.sciepub.com/ajcea/1/3/2/index.html#.UbmMo8r9Ul0.
  • [22] Petersen, Ann Kristin, and Birger Solberg. 2005. “Environmental and Economic Impacts of Substitution between Wood Products and Alternative Materials: A Review of Micro-Level Analyses from Norway and Sweden.” Forest Policy and Economics 7(3): 249–59. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1389934103000637 (October 26, 2016).
  • [23] Pons, O. 2014. Eco-efficient Construction and Building Materials Eco-Efficient Construction and Building Materials. Elsevier. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780857097675500182 (January 27, 2016).
  • [24] Pons, Oriol, and Gerardo Wadel. 2011. “Environmental Impacts of Prefabricated School Buildings in Catalonia.” Habitat International 35(4): 553–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.03.005.
  • [25] Roh, Seungjun, Sungho Tae, Sung Joon Suk, and George Ford. 2017. “Evaluating the Embodied Environmental Impacts of Major Building Tasks and Materials of Apartment Buildings in Korea.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 73(December 2016): 135–44. http://www.sciencedirect.com.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/science/article/pii/S1364032117300916 (April 6, 2017).
  • [26] Shadram, Farshid et al. 2016. “An Integrated BIM-Based Framework for Minimizing Embodied Energy during Building Design.” Energy and Buildings 128: 592–604. http://www.sciencedirect.com.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/science/article/pii/S0378778816306041 (April 6, 2017).
  • [27] Skullestad, Julie Lyslo, Rolf André Bohne, and Jardar Lohne. 2016. “High-Rise Timber Buildings as a Climate Change Mitigation Measure – A Comparative LCA of Structural System Alternatives.” Energy Procedia 96: 112–23. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1876610216307512 (May 25, 2017).
  • [28] Société d’habitation du Québec (SHQ). 2016. Life Cycle Assessment of Residencial Buildings. Quebec.
  • [29] Su, Xing, and Xu Zhang. 2016. “A Detailed Analysis of the Embodied Energy and Carbon Emissions of Steel-Construction Residential Buildings in China.” Energy and Buildings 119: 323–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.070.
  • [30] Suzuki, Michiya, and Tatsuo Oka. 1998. “Estimation of Life Cycle Energy Consumption and CO2 Emission of Office Buildings in Japan.” Energy and Buildings 28(1): 33–41. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378778898000103 (April 6, 2017).
  • [31] Tam, Vivian W.Y., Ivan W.H. Fung, Michael C.P. Sing, and Stephen O. Ogunlana. 2015. “Best Practice of Prefabrication Implementation in the Hong Kong Public and Private Sectors.” Journal of Cleaner Production 109: 216–
  • [32] Thomark, C. 2000. “Environmental Analysis of a Building with Reused Building Materials.” International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings 1. http://dspace.mah.se/bitstream/handle/2043/9844/staffanstorp.pdf?sequence=1 (April 7, 2017).
  • [33] UNEP. 2016. The Emissions Gap Report 2016. The Emissions Gap Report 2016. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Nairobi. file:///C:/Users/ADPAR12/Downloads/emission_gap_report_2016.pdf (April 5, 2017).
  • [34] Yeo, DongHun, and Rene D. Gabbai. 2011. “Sustainable Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures through Embodied Energy Optimization.” Energy and Buildings 43(8): 2028–33. http://www.sciencedirect.com.acces.bibl.ulaval.ca/science/article/pii/S0378778811001678 (April 6, 2017).
Como citar:

Padilla-Rivera, Alejandro; Balnchet, Pierre; "Carbon footprint of pre-fabricated wood buildings", p. 88-95 . In: Anais do Simpósio Brasileiro de Design Sustentável e International Symposium on Sustainable Design 2017. São Paulo: Blucher, 2017.
ISSN 2318-6968, DOI 10.5151/sbds-issd-2017-015

últimos 30 dias | último ano | desde a publicação


downloads


visualizações


indexações