scholarly journals Life-Cycle Evaluation of Concrete Building Construction as a Strategy for Sustainable Cities

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Stadel ◽  
Petek Gursel ◽  
Eric Masanet
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Building Construction ◽  
Sustainable Cities ◽  
Concrete Building

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 7831
Author(s):  
Shaobo Liang ◽  
Hongmei Gu ◽  
Richard Bergman
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Cost Analysis ◽  
Life Cycle Cost ◽  
Impact Category ◽  
Life Cycle Cost Analysis ◽  
Floor Area ◽  
High Rise ◽  
Concrete Building ◽  
Mass Timber

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.

Comparison of Building Construction and Life-Cycle Cost for a High-Rise Mass Timber Building with its Concrete Alternative

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 482-492
Author(s):  
Hongmei Gu ◽  
Shaobo Liang ◽  
Richard Bergman
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Life Cycle Cost ◽  
Building Materials ◽  
Building Design ◽  
Cost Data ◽  
Construction Costs ◽  
High Rise ◽  
Front End ◽  
Concrete Building ◽  
Mass Timber

Abstract Mass timber building materials such as cross-laminated timber (CLT) have captured attention in mid- to high-rise building designs because of their potential environmental benefits. The recently updated multistory building code also enables greater utilization of these wood building materials. The cost-effectiveness of mass timber buildings is also undergoing substantial analysis. Given the relatively new presence of CLT in United States, high front-end construction costs are expected. This study presents the life-cycle cost (LCC) for a 12-story, 8,360-m2 mass timber building to be built in Portland, Oregon. The goal was to assess its total life-cycle cost (TLCC) relative to a functionally equivalent reinforced-concrete building design using our in-house-developed LCC tool. Based on commercial construction cost data from the RSMeans database, a mass timber building design is estimated to have 26 percent higher front-end costs than its concrete alternative. Front-end construction costs dominated the TLCC for both buildings. However, a decrease of 2.4 percent TLCC relative to concrete building was observed because of the estimated longer lifespan and higher end-of-life salvage value for the mass timber building. The end-of-life savings from demolition cost or salvage values in mass timber building could offset some initial construction costs. There are minimal historical construction cost data and lack of operational cost data for mass timber buildings; therefore, more studies and data are needed to make the generalization of these results. However, a solid methodology for mass timber building LCC was developed and applied to demonstrate several cost scenarios for mass timber building benefits or disadvantages.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Applied Measures on the Simulated Scenarios for the Sustainable Building Construction through Carbon Footprint Emissions—Case Study of Building Construction in Serbia

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 4688
Author(s):  
Marina Nikolić Topalović ◽  
Milenko Stanković ◽  
Goran Ćirović ◽  
Dragan Pamučar
Keyword(s):  
Energy Efficiency ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Carbon Footprint ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Construction Materials ◽  
Building Construction ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Embodied Carbon ◽  
Long Run ◽  
The Impact

Research was conducted to indicate the impact of the increased flow of thermal insulation materials on the environment due to the implementation of the new regulations on energy efficiency of buildings. The regulations on energy efficiency of buildings in Serbia came into force on 30 September 2012 for all new buildings as well as for buildings in the process of rehabilitation and reconstruction. For that purpose, the carbon footprint was analyzed in three scenarios (BS, S1 and S2) for which the quantities of construction materials and processes were calculated. The life cycle analysis (LCA), which is the basis for analyzing the carbon life cycle (LCACO2), was used in this study. Carbon Calculator was used for measuring carbon footprint, and URSA program to calculate the operational energy. This study was done in two phases. In Phase 1, the embodied carbon was measured to evaluate short-term effects of the implementation of the new regulations. Phase 2 included the first 10 years of building exploitation to evaluate the long-term effects of the new regulations. The analysis was done for the period of 10 years, further adjustments to the regulations regarding energy efficiency of the buildings in Serbia are expected in accordance with EU directives. The study shows that, in the short-run, Scenario BS has the lowest embodied carbon. In the long-run, after 3.66 years, Scenario S2 becomes a better option regarding the impact on the environment. The study reveals the necessity to include embodied carbon together with the whole life carbon to estimation the impact of a building on the environment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document