Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Introduction
Aim and Scope
Literature Review
Calculation Method
Material Quantities
Case Study Building
Results
Adp Elements of Building Materials
Adp Fossil of Building Materials
Material
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Material Efficiency of Building Construction

Profile image of Francis Tan Ming FengFrancis Tan Ming Feng
https://doi.org/10.3390/BUILDINGS4030266
visibility

…

description

29 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Better construction and use of buildings in the European Union would influence 42% of final energy consumption, about 35% of our greenhouse gas emissions and more than 50% of all extracted materials. It could also help to save up to 30% of water consumption. This paper outlines and draws conclusions about different aspects of the material efficiency of buildings and assesses the significance of different building materials on the material efficiency. The research uses an extensive literature study and a case-study in order to assess: should the depletion of materials be ignored in the environmental or sustainability assessment of buildings, are the related effects on land use, energy use and/or harmful emissions significant, should related indicators (such as GHGs) be used to indicate the material efficiency of buildings, and what is the significance of scarce materials, compared to the use of other building materials. This research suggests that the material efficiency should focus on the significant global impacts of material efficiency; not on the individual factors of it. At present global warming and greenhouse gas emissions are among the biggest global problems on which material efficiency has a direct impact on. Therefore, this paper suggests that greenhouse gas emissions could be used as an indicator for material efficiency in building.

Figures (7)
Table 1. Total mass of materials, abiotic material inputs per ton material ton, abiotic material inputs with no abiotic depletion (ADP) characterization factor, average ADP characterization factor of abiotic inputs, total ADP of materials and data source for material inputs. fable 2. Total mass of materials, fossil energy inputs per ton material ton, total ADP Fossil of materials and data source for material inputs.
Table 1. Total mass of materials, abiotic material inputs per ton material ton, abiotic material inputs with no abiotic depletion (ADP) characterization factor, average ADP characterization factor of abiotic inputs, total ADP of materials and data source for material inputs. fable 2. Total mass of materials, fossil energy inputs per ton material ton, total ADP Fossil of materials and data source for material inputs.
‘able 3. Total mass of materials, fossil energy inputs per ton material ton, total ADP Fossil of materials, abiotic material inputs per ton 1aterial ton, abiotic material inputs with no ADP characterization factor, average ADP characterization factor of abiotic inputs, total ADP of 1aterials and data source for material inputs for soil stabilization of case-building. Table 4. Total weight of selected materials, ADP characterization factors for materials and total ADP for lighting, based on a single lamr over a 50-year life-cycle with four replacements.
‘able 3. Total mass of materials, fossil energy inputs per ton material ton, total ADP Fossil of materials, abiotic material inputs per ton 1aterial ton, abiotic material inputs with no ADP characterization factor, average ADP characterization factor of abiotic inputs, total ADP of 1aterials and data source for material inputs for soil stabilization of case-building. Table 4. Total weight of selected materials, ADP characterization factors for materials and total ADP for lighting, based on a single lamr over a 50-year life-cycle with four replacements.
Table 5. Total area of solar panels, ADP characterization factors per square meter of panel. and total ADP for solar panels over a 50-year life-cycle with three replacements. 5.5. ADP of Material Transportations and Construction Work
Table 5. Total area of solar panels, ADP characterization factors per square meter of panel. and total ADP for solar panels over a 50-year life-cycle with three replacements. 5.5. ADP of Material Transportations and Construction Work
Figure 1. Fossil energy consumption (net calorific value) over the life cycle of the building.
Figure 1. Fossil energy consumption (net calorific value) over the life cycle of the building.
Figure 1 combines the ADP Fossil values for operational energy use from Table 6, for building materials from Table 2, for soil stabilization from Table 3, and for material-related processes from Section 5.5. The respective ADP Fossil values for the different items are as follows: heating energy 7100 GJ (2.32 GJ/m’), hot water 12,400 GJ (4.05 GJ/m’), electricity 19,300 GJ (6.31 GJ/m”), building materials 15,900 GJ (5.20 GJ/m’), material-related processes 2400 GJ (0.78 GJ/m*), and site construction (soil stabilization) 6400 GJ (2.09 GJ/m’).
Figure 1 combines the ADP Fossil values for operational energy use from Table 6, for building materials from Table 2, for soil stabilization from Table 3, and for material-related processes from Section 5.5. The respective ADP Fossil values for the different items are as follows: heating energy 7100 GJ (2.32 GJ/m’), hot water 12,400 GJ (4.05 GJ/m’), electricity 19,300 GJ (6.31 GJ/m”), building materials 15,900 GJ (5.20 GJ/m’), material-related processes 2400 GJ (0.78 GJ/m*), and site construction (soil stabilization) 6400 GJ (2.09 GJ/m’).

Related papers

Environmental impact of buildings – what matters?
Holger Wallbaum

Environmental Science & Technology, 2015

The goal of this study was to identify drivers of environmental impact and quantify their influence on the environmental performance of wooden and massive residential and office buildings. We performed a life cycle assessment and used thermal simulation to quantify operational energy demand and to account for differences in thermal inertia of building mass. Twenty-eight input parameters, affecting operation, design, material, and exogenic building properties were sampled in a Monte Carlo analysis. To determine sensitivity, we calculated the correlation between each parameter and the resulting life cycle inventory and impact assessment scores. Parameters affecting operational energy demand and energy conversion are the most influential for the building's total environmental performance. For climate change, electricity mix, ventilation rate, heating system, and construction material rank the highest. Thermal inertia results in an average 2−6% difference in heat demand. Nonrenewable cumulative energy demand of wooden buildings is 18% lower, compared to a massive variant. Total cumulative energy demand is comparable. The median climate change impact is 25% lower, including end-of-life material credits and 22% lower, when credits are excluded. The findings are valid for small offices and residential buildings in Switzerland and regions with similar building culture, construction material production, and climate.

View PDFchevron_right
ciency · Energy Efficient Building · Environmental Effects
İzzet Yüksek

2016

Buildings consume energy at different levels in every stage of the life-cycle. Building materials occupy a great share of this consumption. Therefore, the amount of energy consumed by ma-terials used in building during their life cycle is an important parameter in determining the energy efficiency of the building. In this study, the importance of energy- efficient material selec-tion in designing “Energy-Efficient Building ” is considered and discussed. It is possible to evaluate some building materials in Turkey in the framework of energy efficient building material criteria. This information is considered as a guide for users and employees of the building sector. As a result of the study, the selection of building material and energy efficient features of building materials are important parameters for the provision of energy efficiency.

View PDFchevron_right
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
Justo García Navarro

Building and Environment, 2006

A great quantity of CO 2 is emitted to the atmosphere through the different phases of a building life cycle: in the production of materials and products, in the construction of the building itself, in the setting on site, in the exploitation, the renovations, the later rehabilitations, up to the final demolition. The present paper shows the possibility of reducing the CO 2 emissions up to 30% in the construction phase, through a careful selection of low environmental impact materials. The purpose of this study is to quantify the total amount of CO 2 emissions saved by the method presented in the particular phase of material selection within the life cycle of a building. This material selection, as well as the bioclimatic characteristics, must be defined from the early design project phase.

View PDFchevron_right
An Evaluative Study on Energy Efficient Building Materials
Tanuj Verma, IJIRAE - International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering

— Due to growing demand for floor space, and to accommodate emerging service industries and urban migration, India expects a doubling of floor space by 2030. Use of low embodied energy and cost effective building materials, in the building construction, can reduce the overall energy consumption significantly and thus eventually minimize energy footprint of buildings. In existing residential and small commercial buildings, over 50% of the energy loss is associated with heat transfer and air leakage through building envelope components. This paper suggest the various alternative building materials, their production and evaluation based on three components i.e. Embodied Energy, CO 2 emission and Thermal Conductivity (K Value). Evaluation is done by calculating the normalised value of above three components and analysed. It is observed that Stabilized mud blocks have the least environmental impact followed by AAC Blocks, while Solid concrete blocks has the highest environmental impact. Waste material such as fly ash, used in large quantities, such as in AAC blocks, fly ash concrete blocks and FaL-G blocks, has a low impact on environment. Materials that use stone dust from stone crushing units also have a lower environmental impact. Cement based walling materials such as FaL-G blocks and solid concrete blocks require more water than other materials due to the curing process involved in their production. Clay based walling materials requires the least water.

View PDFchevron_right
Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential
Antonio Valero

Building and Environment, 2011

The building industry uses great quantities of raw materials that also involve high energy consumption. Choosing materials with high content in embodied energy entails an initial high level of energy consumption in the building production stage but also determines future energy consumption in order to fulfil heating, ventilation and air conditioning demands.

View PDFchevron_right
Comparsion Analysis of Green Building Materilas and Convential Materials
Utkarsh Mathur

International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education, 2018

Day by the day construction is increasing around us so rapidly that is why the energy consumption has increased a lot. The construction materials that is used to build a general building now days mostly consists of non-renewable materials which are neither long lasting nor Energy Efficient. These are health hazardous and less eco-friendly too. According to the economists concern, though these materials gives the low initial cost for making a building but leads to high energy consumption expenses and a high maintenance cost which results in increasing the overall cost of the building. So it is always challenging to a civil engineer that construct the buildings in such a way that construction is eco-friendly. In the market renewable or sustainable oddly green materials buildings are available which are eco friendly as well as not health hazardous.

View PDFchevron_right
The sustainability of construction: techniques and technologies for energy efficiency and the reduction of greenhouse gases – methodological aspects
sylvia rola

Eco-Architecture IV, 2012

In order to adapt densely packed cities to climate change, there is a pressing need for the adoption of techniques that contribute to the sustainability of constructions and, therefore, of the cities themselves, so that they become more appropriate places to enable their citizens to live and work. Indeed, adopting techniques for greening built-up environments and making use of non-energyintensive construction technologies has proven to be an environmentally friendly and energetically efficient alternative, enhancing the micro-climate of adapted buildings and the meso-climate of the built up environment, creating ecologically appropriate alternatives for renewal of areas vulnerable to degradation and the expansion of sustainable newly constructed areas. In this context, with the support of the Rio de Janeiro State Research Funding Agency (FAPERJ), a practical experiment is currently underway at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) involving the application of naturation. This is a practical experiment that consists of applying vegetation to constructed surfaces using the COMPEC brick, which is comprised of organic and inorganic matter derived from solid urban waste. The aim is to evaluate energy and thermal comfort aspects by measuring the potential for energy conservation and efficiency gains when compared with conventional building materials. At present, 3 prototypes Eco-Architecture IV 421

View PDFchevron_right
On the Sustainability Assessment of Building Materials and Components
Helen Hein

2021

As a basis for any scientifically sound sustainability assessment, the concept of sustainability must first be clarified. This must be considered in a special way with regard to the assessment of individual products. Two essential aspects of the necessary clarification are presented and discussed below. Two examples from the field of building materials are used to illustrate some of the problems that could potentially arise. It is made clear that a sustainability assessment of building materials and components is not possible without explicit reference to the specific purpose of use as well as to the technological and social framework. The limitations outlined should be taken into account when interpreting assessment results that document compliance with sustainability objectives.

View PDFchevron_right
Evaluation of the Energy-Positive Aspects for Optimal Construction Efficiency through Material Realism
Manali Deshmukh, pratik mour

Developing upon the tenets of SDG 7 and SDG 11, this paper studies the relationship between materials used in 21st century construction and their characteristic scope for energy-positive application in the housing segment of India against the levels and criterias of 'Optimal Construction Efficiency through Material Realism' (OCEMR). On account of climate change being grossly influenced by the construction sector today due to the choice of materials, processes and construction technologies, it has caused an increase in the Net Carbon Emissions. Hence, the hypothesis of the research is that 'climate considerate architecture' can become 'climate-positive architecture' upon application of optimization techniques to improve the construction efficiency by understanding a material and its construction processes and their many aspects to lower corresponding Global Warming Potential (GWP). In this paper, the concept of an OCEMR is analysed and later formulated based on variables like material choice, regionality of materials, mode of application of materials, available range of alternative material and technology, lifecycle studies of materials, the materials' timeline of carbon emissions, et cetera. Certain factors deduced through a base case using One-click LCA suggest relationships between the aforementioned variables which can be used to measure material-oriented choices in construction against a framework to optimise sustainability, affordability of construction efficiency.

View PDFchevron_right
Reduction of primary energy and CO2 emissions through selection and environmental evaluation of building materials
Adriana Estokova

Theoretical Foundations of Chemical Engineering, 2012

Building materials as principal components of building constructions and entire build ings play an important role in overall impact on the environment. In this paper, the environmental assessment of building materials in selected building in the Slovak Republic using life cycle assess ment data is presented. Environmental parameters, such as the amount of primary energy, global warming potential and acidification potential together with weight of used materials were evaluated. For selected constructions, the alternation of materials basis was performed to minimize the nega tive effect of building materials. As a result of optimization a 13.5% reduction of primary energy intensity, 3.7% reduction of global warming potential and 4.2% of acidification potential were achieved for the whole building by the change of building materials.

View PDFchevron_right

References (92)

  1. The Federation of Finnish Technology Industries (Teknologiateollisuus) 2013. Kilpailukykyä ja uutta liiketoimintaa materiaalitehokkuudesta. (In Finnish) Available online: http://www. teknologiateollisuus.fi/file/15592/Materiaalitehokkuusjulkaisu2013.pdf.html (accessed on 13 February 2014).
  2. European Commission. A resource-efficient Europe-Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy. COM (2011) 21. Brussels, 26.1.2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/resource- efficient-europe/pdf/resource_efficient_europe_en.pdf (accessed 23 June 2014).
  3. European Commission. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. COM (2011) 571 final. Brussels, 20.9.2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/pdf/com2011 _571.pdf (accessed 23 June 2014).
  4. Berge, B. The Ecology of Building Materials, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Italy, 2009; p. 427.
  5. Azapagic, A. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2004, 12, 639-662.
  6. European Commission. Critical raw materials for the EU. Technical Report, June 2010. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/raw-materials/files/docs/report-b_en.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2014).
  7. Brent, A.C.; Hietkamp, S. The Impact of Mineral Resource Depletion. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 361-362.
  8. Steen, B.A. Abiotic resource depletion. Different perceptions of the problem with mineral deposits. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 1, 49-54.
  9. Strauss, K.; Brent, A.; Hietkamp, S. Characterisation and normalisation factors for life cycle impact assessment mined abiotic resources categories in south Africa. The manufacturing of catalytic converter exhaust systems as a case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 162-171.
  10. Meadows, D.H.; Randers, J.; Meadows, D.L. Limits to Growth. The 30-Year Update; Earthscan: Oxford, UK, 2005; p. 338.
  11. Jolliet, O.; Müller-Wenk, R.; Bare, J.; Brent, A.; Goedkoop, M.; Heijnungs, R.; Itsubo, N.; Peña, C.; Pennington, D.; Potting, J.; et al. The LCIA Midpoint-damage Framework of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Int. J. Life Cycle Manag. 2004, 9, 394-404.
  12. Yellishetty, M.; Ranjith, P.G.; Tharumarajah, A.; Bhosale, S.A. Life cycle assessment in the minerals and metals sector: A critical review of selected issues and challenges. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2009, 14, 257-267.
  13. Finnveden, G. The Resource Debate Needs to Continue. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005, 10, 372-372.
  14. Söderholm, P.; Tilton, J.E. Material efficiency: An economic perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 61, 75-82.
  15. Vieira, M.D.M.; Ponsioen, T.C.; Goedkoop, M.J.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Surplus cost as a life cycle impact indicator for mineral resource scarcity. Available online: http://www.lc-impact.eu/ userfiles/D_1_4_mineral_and_fossil_resource_use.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2013).
  16. Ponsionen, T.C.; Vieira, M.D.M.; Goedkoop, M.J. Surplus cost as a life cycle impact indicator for fossil resource depletion. Available online: http://www.lc-impact.eu/userfiles/D_1_4_mineral_ and_fossil_resource_use.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2013).
  17. Rees, W.; Wackernagel, M. Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable-And why they are a key to sustainability. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1996, 16, 223-248.
  18. Haberl, H.; Wackernagel, M.; Krausmann, F.; Erb, K.-H.; Monfreda, C. Ecological footprints and human appropriation of net primary production: A comparison. Land Use Policy 2004, 21, 279-288.
  19. European Environment Agency. Land accounts for Europe 1990-2000, towards integrated land and ecosystem accounting, EEA Report No 11/2006. Available online: http://www.eea.europa.eu /publications/eea_report_2006_11 (accessed 23 June 2014).
  20. Eurostat. Economy-wide Material Flow Accounts and Derived Indicators-A Methodological Guide; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2001. Available online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/environmental_accounts/ documents/3.pdf (accessed 23 June 2014)
  21. Van der Voet, E.; van Oers, L.; Moll, S.; Schütz, H.; Bringezu, S.; de Bruyn, S.; Sevenster, M.; Warringa, G. Policy Review on Decoupling: Development of Indicators to Assess Decoupling of Economic Development and Environmental Pressure in the EU-25 and AC-3 Countries; Department Industrial Ecology, Leiden University: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2004.
  22. Tukker, A.; Huppes, G.; van Oers, L.; Heijungs, R. Environmentally Extended Input-Output Tables and Models for Europe; Eder, P., Delgado, L., Neuwahl, F., Eds.; EC, JRC, IPTS Technical Report Series, EUR 22194 EN, Seville, Spain, 2006. Available online: http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/eur22194en.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  23. Berger, M.; Finkbeiner, M. Correlation analysis of life cycle impact assessment indicators measuring resource use. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 16, 75-81.
  24. EN 15804:2012 Sustainability of construction works-Environmental product declarations-Core rules for the product category of construction products. 2012. Available online: http://standards. cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p=204:110:0::::FSP_PROJECT:40703&cs=1C696AB3A6B08F09003DC00E 3E3B2DA17 (accessed 23 June 2014).
  25. EN 15978:2011. Sustainability of construction works-Assessment of environmental performance of buildings-Calculation method. 2011. Available online: http://standards.cen.eu/dyn/www/f?p =204:110:0::::FSP_PROJECT:31325&cs=16BA443169318FC086C4652D797E50C47 (accessed 23 June 2014).
  26. Stewart, M.; Weidema, B.P. A Consistent Framework for Assessing the Impacts from Resource Use-A focus on resource functionality. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2005, 10, 240-247.
  27. Pennington, D.W.; Potting, J.; Finnveden, G.; Lindeijer, E.; Jolliet, O.; Rydberg, T.; Rebitzer, G. Life cycle assessment Part 2: Current impact assessment practice. Environ. Int. 2004, 30, 721-739.
  28. Ruuska, A.; Häkkinen, T.; Vares, S.; Korhonen, M.-R.; Myllymaa, T. Environmental Impacts of Building Materials (Rakennusmateriaalien ympäristövaikutukset), Finnish Ministry of Environment, 8/2013 (In Finnish). Available online: http://www.ym.fi/download/noname/%7B1FAF46B2- 2649-41ED-B3AA-5EA789C9512F%7D/37571 (accessed on 31 January 2014).
  29. Salmi, O.; Haapalehto, T.; Harlin, A.; Häkkinen, T.; Kangas, H.; Mroueh, U.-M.; Qvintus, P. The Development of Material Efficiency in the Finnish Industries; Technical Report for The Ministry of employment and the economy (In Finnish): Helsinki, Finland, 2013; p. 46.
  30. Allwood, J.M.; Ashby, M.F.; Gutowski, T.G.; Worrell, E. Material efficiency: A white paper. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 362-381.
  31. Prior, T.; Giurco, D.; Mudd, D.; Mason, L.; Behrich, J. Resource depletion, peak minerals and the implications for sustainable resource management. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 577-587.
  32. Wouters, H.; Bol, D. Material Scarcity; Materials Innovation Institute: Delft, The Netherlands, 2009.
  33. De Almeida, P.; Silva, P.D. The peak of oil production-Timings and market recognition. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 1267-1276.
  34. European Commission. The raw materials initiative-Meeting our critical needs for growth and jobs in Europe. COM 699. Brussels, 4.11.2008. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ sectors/metals-minerals/files/com699_en.pdf (accessed 23 June 2014).
  35. Ahmed, M.S.; Vidyadhara, H.S. Experimental study on strength behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 2013, 2, 76-82.
  36. Lohani, T.K.; Padhi, M.; Dash, K.P.; Jena, S. Optimum utilization of quarry dust as partial replacement of sand in concrete. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Res. 2012, 1, 391-404.
  37. Habert, G.; Bouzidi, Y.; Chen, C.; Jullien, A. Development of a depletion indicator for natural resources used in concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 364-376.
  38. Yellishetty, M.; Mudd, G.M.; Ranjith, P.G. The steel industry, abiotic resource depletion and life cycle assessment: A real or perceived issue? J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 78-90.
  39. Gleich, B.; Achzet, B.; Mayer, H.; Rathgeber, A. An empirical approach to determine specific weights of driving factors for the price of commodities-A contribution to the measurement of the economic scarcity of minerals and metals. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 350-362.
  40. Sartori, I.; Hestnes, A.G. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy Build. 2007, 39, 249-257.
  41. Hernandez, P.; Kenny, P. Development of a methodology for life cycle building energy ratings. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 2779-3788.
  42. Stephan, A.; Crawford, R.H.; de Myttenaere, K. Towards a more holistic approach to reducing the energy demand of dwellings. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Green Buildings and Sustainable Cities, Procedia Engineering, Bologna, Italy, 15-16 September, 2011; pp. 1033-1041.
  43. Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K.K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1592-1600.
  44. Yung, P.; Lam, K.C.; Yu, C. An audit of life cycle energy analyses of buildings. Habitat Int. 2013, 39, 43-54.
  45. Aktas, C.B.; Bilec, M.M. Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 17, 337-349.
  46. Rauf, A.; Crawford, R.H. The relationship between material service life and the life cycle energy of contemporary residential buildings in Australia. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2013, 56, 252-261.
  47. Stephan, A.; Crawford, R.H.; de Myttenaere, K. Multi-scale life cycle energy analysis of a low-density suburban neighbourhood in Melbourne, Australia. Build. Environ. 2013, 68, 35-49.
  48. Fuller, R.J.; Crawford, R.H. Impact of past and future residential housing development patterns on energy demand and related emissions. J. Hous. Build. Environ. 2011, 26, 165-183.
  49. Säynäjoki, A.; Heinonen, J.; Junnila, S. A scenario analysis of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of a new residential area. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 034037:1-034037:10.
  50. Milà i Canals, L.; Bauer, C.; Depestele, J.; Dubreuil, A.; Freiermuth Knuchel, R.; Gaillard, G.; Michelsen, O.; Müller-Wenk, R.; Rydgren, B. Key elements in a framework for land use impact assessment within LCA. Int. J. Cycle Assess. 2007, 12, 5-15.
  51. Marshall, E.; Shortle, J. Urban Development Impacts on Ecosystems. In Land Use Problems and Conflicts: Causes Consequences and Solutions; Goetz, S., Shortle, J., Bergstrom, J., Eds.; Routledge Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
  52. Scalenghe, R.; Marsan, F.A. The anthropogenic sealing of soils in urban areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 90, 1-10.
  53. Wheater, H.; Evans, E. Land use, water management and future flood risk. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 251-264.
  54. Häkkinen, T.; Helin, T.; Antuña, C.; Supper, S.; Schiopu, N.; Nibel, S. Land Use as an Aspect of Sustainable Building. Int. J. Sustain. Land Use Urban Plan. 2013, 1, 21-41.
  55. Finnish Ministry of Environment. Sustainable use of soil materials. Guidelines of the Ministry of environment. Available online: http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=101195&lan=fi (accessed on 30 August 2013).
  56. Goodrum, P.M.; Zhai, D.; Yasin, M. Relationship between Changes in Material Technology and Construction Productivity. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 278-287.
  57. European Parliament, European Council, Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings, 2002. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091&from=EN (accessed 23 June 2014).
  58. European Parliament, European Council, Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, 2010. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:153:0013:0035:EN:PDF (accessed 23 June 2014).
  59. Cansino, J.M.; Pablo-Romero, M.P.; Román, R.; Yñiguez, R. Promoting renewable energy sources for heating and cooling in EU-27 countries. Assessment of the sustainable building steering mechanisms in selected EU member states. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3803-3812.
  60. Tuominen, P.; Klobut, K.; Tolman, A.; Adjei, A.; de Best-Waldhober, M. Energy savings potential in buildings and overcoming market barriers in member states of the European Union. Energy Build. 2012, 51, 48-55.
  61. European Union. The Construction Products Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 (CPR). 2011. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:088:0005: 0043:EN:PDF (accessed 23 June 2014).
  62. European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC). ILCD Handbook: Recommendations for Life Cycle Impact Assessment in the European Context; Publication Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2011. Available online: http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ repository/bitstream/111111111/26229/1/jrc61049_ilcd%20handbook%20final.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2014).
  63. Guinée, J.B.; Gorrée, M.; Heijungs, R.; Huppes, G.; Kleijn, R.; Koning, A.; de Oers, L.; van Wegener Sleeswijk, A.; Suh, S.; de Haes, H.A.; et al. Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment. Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. I: LCA in Perspective. IIa: Guide. IIb: Operational annex. III: Scientific background; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; p. 692.
  64. Van Oers, L.; de Koning, A.; Guinée, J.B.; Huppes, G. Abiotic Resource Depletion in LCA, Improving Characterization Factors for Abiotic Resource Depletion as Recommended in the New Dutch LCA Handbook; Road and hydraulic engineering institute: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002.
  65. EN ISO 14040:2006. Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment. Principles and Framework; The International Organization for standardization: London, UK, 2006.
  66. Crawford, R.H. Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 496-506.
  67. Suh, S.; Lenzen, M.; Treloar, G.J.; Hondo, H.; Horvath, A.; Huppes, G.; Jolliet, O.; Klann, U.; Krewitt, W.; Moriguchi, Y.; Munksgaard, J.; Norris, G. Critical review: System Boundary Selection in Life-Cycle Inventories Using Hybrid Approaches. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 657-664.
  68. Treloar, G.J. Extracting Embodied Energy Paths from Input-Output Tables: Towards an Input-Output-based Hybrid Energy Analysis Method. Econ. Syst. Res. 1997, 9, 375-391.
  69. Dixit, M.K.; Culp, C.H.; Férnandez-Solís, J.L. System boundary for embodied energy in buildings: A conceptual model for definition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 21, 153-164.
  70. European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC). European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, European Platform on Life Cycle Assessment. Available online: http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa. eu/?page_id=126 (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  71. University of Leiden, CML-IA Characterisation Factors, CML, 2013. Available online: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/databases/cmlia/cmlia.zip (accessed on 26 January 2014).
  72. Soules, T.F.; Whitman, P.K.; Chirayath, D.R. Fluorescent lamp with phosphor coating of multiple layers, European Patent Specification, EP 0807958B1, European Patent Office, 30 October 2012.
  73. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste, Mercury Emissions from Disposal of Fluorescent Lamps; Office of Solid Waste U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 30 June 1997.
  74. European aluminium association (EAA). Aluminium extrusion profile, LCI data set, European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Permanent dataset URI. Available online: http://lca. jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasets/elcd/processes/09215eb0-5fc9-11dd-ad8b-0800200c9a66.xml (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  75. PE International, Pre-cast concrete, LCI data set. European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Permanent dataset URI. Available online: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasets/ elcd/processes/898618b0-3306-11dd-bd11-0800200c9a66.xml (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  76. European Copper Institute, Copper tube, LCI data set. European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Permanent dataset URI. Available online: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/ datasets/elcd/contacts/42a11490-573c-11dd-ae16-0800200c9a66.xml (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  77. PE International, Polypropylene fibres (PP), LCI data set. European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Permanent dataset URI. Available online: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ lcainfohub/datasets/elcd/processes/db00901b-338f-11dd-bd11-0800200c9a66.xml (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  78. PE International, Gravel 2/32, LCI data set. European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Permanent dataset URI. Available online: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasets/ elcd/processes/898618b2-3306-11dd-bd11-0800200c9a66.xml (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  79. Eurogypsum, Gypsum Plasterboard, LCI data set. European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Available online: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasets/elcd/processes/ cc39e70e-4a40-42b6-89e3-7305f0b95dc4.xml (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  80. Steel sections, LCI data set. Worldsteel, European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Permanent dataset URI. Available online: http://elcd.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/resource/processes /09d61948-238a-40e7-8e1f-afdc0c98f902?format=html&version=03.00.000 (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  81. PE-International, Pine wood, European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Permanent dataset URI. Available online: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasets/elcd/processes/ 621e64d0-f471-4023-9ebc-a52cd8ee573f.xml (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  82. PE-International, Particle board, European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Permanent dataset URI. Available online: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasets/elcd/ processes/bd7fdac9-40d5-4613-9374-6969803269d9.xml (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  83. Cembureau, Portland cement, European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Permanent dataset URI. Available online: http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/resource/processes/600573dd- dfa5-44e5-b458-8727e793ffd7.xml (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  84. European Lime Association, Quicklime, European reference Life Cycle Database, ELCD, 2013. Permanent dataset URI. Available online: http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/resource/sources/ 7983f4c6-a355-4250-aaa8-5780a72cc1df.xml (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  85. European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC). Characterisation Factors of the ILCD, Recommended Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods, Database and Supporting Information, JRC Technical Notes; European Union, Publications office of the European Union: Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 2012.
  86. Bio Intelligence Service. Study on Photovoltaic Panels Supplementing the Impact Sssessment for a Recast of the WEEE Directive; Final report to European Commission DG ENV, 14 April 2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/Study%20on%20PVs%20 Bio%20final.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  87. LIPASTO-A calculation system for traffic exhaust emissions and energy consumption in Finland, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. Available online: http://lipasto.vtt.fi/indexe.htm (accessed on 21 January 2014).
  88. Keto, M. Energy Factors, General Principles and Factors for Realized Production of Electricity and District Heating; Technical Report for The Ministry of Environment, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland, November, 2010.
  89. Adalberth, K.; Almgren, A.; Holleris, P.E. Life-Cycle assessment of four multi-family buildings. Int. J. Low Energy Sustain. Build. 2001, 2, 1-21.
  90. Statistics Finland, Energy Statistics Year book 2011. Available online: http://www.stat.fi/tup/ julkaisut/tiedostot/julkaisuluettelo/yene_enev_201100_2012_6164_net.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2014).
  91. Blom, I.; Itard, L.; Meijer, A. Environmental impact of building-related and user-related energy consumption in dwellings. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1657-1669.
  92. Häkkinen, T. Sustainable Refurbishment of Exterior Walls and Building Facades; VTT: Espoo, Finland, 2012. Available online: http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2012/T30.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2014).

Related papers

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Performance of Building Materials towards Sustainable Construction
Adriana Estokova

Chemical engineering transactions, 2013

Contemporary the construction sector belongs to major industries with responsibility for the deterioration of environment. Throughout different stages of building life cycle buildings use materials and require adding of energy for various processes. Consumption of tremendous quantity of energy is directly linked with greenhouse gasses emitted to atmosphere causing the effect known as global warming. The key factors to select material basis are technical and economical parameters, however selecting of building materials regarding environmental performance may lead to reduction a negative image of construction sector. This paper analysis 2 design variants of one conventional Slovak building with alternated materials composition in selected structures. Evaluation was performed in terms of environmental performance of used building materials and included calculation of embodied energy and embodied CO2 an SO2 emissions. The result of study found that it is possible to reduce monitored en...

View PDFchevron_right
The Evaluation of Building Materials in Terms of Energy Efficiency
İzzet Yüksek

Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 2015

Buildings consume energy at different levels in every stage of the life-cycle. Building materials occupy a great share of this consumption. Therefore, the amount of energy consumed by materials used in building during their life cycle is an important parameter in determining the energy efficiency of the building. In this study, the importance of energy-efficient material selection in designing "Energy-Efficient Building" is considered and discussed. It is possible to evaluate some building materials in Turkey in the framework of energy efficient building material criteria. This information is considered as a guide for users and employees of the building sector. As a result of the study, the selection of building material and energy efficient features of building materials are important parameters for the provision of energy efficiency.

View PDFchevron_right
Green building toward construction sustainability: energy efficiency with material and design aspects
Hussein Abu Al-Rejal

2017

In this globalization era, sustainable constructions have taken on some new steps to stimulate green building practice.Green building criteria basis are energy efficiency, material and resource conservation and sustainable design of the building itself.Energy efficiency still has a long way to go, due to some barriers that prevail in the practice of energy efficiency.Similarly, materials and design that are originally used have created various issues related to the environment and human health.In Malaysia, people’s level of awareness about green building is still low and they have minimum understanding and lack of familiarity about green materials and sustainable design.According to Klufallah, Nuruddin, Khamidi and Jamaludin (2014), 24% of total of carbon dioxide (CO2) comes from the construction sector in the Malaysia.Therefore, this study aims to look into building energy efficiency and materials and design employed in green buildings to achieve constructive sustainability and to ...

View PDFchevron_right
A comparative analysis of building materials for sustainable construction with emphasis on CO 2 reduction
Kashif Mahmud

Building contributes almost 40% of CO 2 emissions and is a major contributor to the green house gas (GHG) emissions. Different types of construction materials possess a wide variation of embodied energy and emit CO 2 at different magnitudes during its life cycle. Selection of appropriate construction materials can considerably cut down CO 2 emissions and make our buildings more sustainable and energy efficient. The study is an attempt to address the issues of sustainable construction and how its selection of construction materials can reduce CO 2 emissions and play an important role in reducing the impact of climate change directly or indirectly. A case study for a typical house having 90 sq. m. of plan area was analysed to see the variation of CO 2 emission based on altering the types of construction materials to be used. It has been observed from the case study that construction materials like aluminium and steel should be less encouraged due to their higher CO 2 emission rate as compared to glass and timber.

View PDFchevron_right
A comparative analysis of building materials for sustainable construction with emphasis on CO<SUB align="right">2 reduction
Kashif Mahmud

International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 2011

Building contributes almost 40% of CO 2 emissions and is a major contributor to the green house gas (GHG) emissions. Different types of construction materials possess a wide variation of embodied energy and emit CO 2 at different magnitudes during its life cycle. Selection of appropriate construction materials can considerably cut down CO 2 emissions and make our buildings more sustainable and energy efficient. The study is an attempt to address the issues of sustainable construction and how its selection of construction materials can reduce CO 2 emissions and play an important role in reducing the impact of climate change directly or indirectly. A case study for a typical house having 90 sq. m. of plan area was analysed to see the variation of CO 2 emission based on altering the types of construction materials to be used. It has been observed from the case study that construction materials like aluminium and steel should be less encouraged due to their higher CO 2 emission rate as compared to glass and timber.

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Sustainability in Building and Construction within the Framework of Circular Cities and European New Green Deal. The Contribution of Concrete Recycling
sara zanni

Sustainability

Climate change and ecological crisis are a huge threat to Europe and the world. To overcome these challenges, Europe adopted the New Green Deal as a strategy transforming the Union into a competitive resource-efficient economy without greenhouse gas emissions and become carbon neutral in a few decades. The European Green Deal includes the new circular economy action plan, highlighting the importance of a products’ “green design”, saving raw materials, and waste prevention oriented along the entire life cycle of products. Construction and buildings represent one of the key topics for the green transition. In the European Union, buildings are responsible for 40% of our energy consumption and 36% of greenhouse gas emissions, which are mainly caused by construction, usage, renovation, and demolition. Improving environmental efficiency can play a key role in reaching the carbon neutrality of Europe that is expected to be achieved by 2050. In this research, it was explored how Eco-design,...

View PDFchevron_right
A dynamic hypothesis of sustainable construction for condominium project in the developing countries
Aditya Sutantio

THE 3RD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CIVIL, MATERIALS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING (ICCME 2021) (INTERNATIONAL WEBINAR) 4TH-5TH APRIL 2021

Numerical study of thermal and energetic contribution of phase change materials integrated into external building walls

View PDFchevron_right
Environmental Performance of Residential Buildings: A Life Cycle Assessment Study in Saudi Arabia
Bandar Alkahlan

Sustainability, 2021

The building and construction sector has a huge impact on the environment because of the enormous amounts of natural resources and energy consumed during the life cycle of construction projects. In this study, we evaluated the potential environmental impact of the construction of a villa, from cradle to grave, in the Saudi Arabian context. Centrum voor Milieukunde Leiden (CML) for Centre of Environmental Science of Leiden University-IA baseline v3.03 methods were used to obtain the environmental profile for the impact categories, and Cumulative Energy Demand v1.09 was used to measure the embodied energy of the villa life cycle. The analyzed midpoint impact categories include global warming (GWP100a), ozone layer depletion (ODP), acidification (AP), eutrophication (EP), photochemical oxidation (POCP), and indicator cumulative energy demand (CED). The operation use phase of the villa was found to have the highest global warming potential and acidification with 2.61 × 106 kg CO2-eq and...

View PDFchevron_right
Developing Indicators of Green Initiation and Green Design of Green Supply Chain Management in Construction Industry
Mochamad Agung Wibowo

E3S Web of Conferences, 2019

Project is a set of interrelated activities and requires skills from different professions, and also project is involved the various of stakeholders in each phase of the Project Life Cycle. Implementation of Green Supply Chain in construction projects meant to bring the concept of eco-friendly in every process from the initiation phase, planning phase, the construction phase, and the operation and maintenance phase. It is necessary to identify indicators of green initiation and green design and how to explain the relationship between the role of initiation by the owner and the design process by a design consultant. This study aims to identify the indicators of green initiation and green design concept as part of Green Supply Chain. The method used for this study is a descriptive research that identifies and develop a framework for implementing green initiation and green design in construction industry that consists of concept, dimensions, elements, and indicators. GSCM in constructi...

View PDFchevron_right
Wooden Additional Floors in Old Apartment Buildings: Perspectives of Housing and Real Estate Companies from Finland
Emre Ilgin

Buildings, 2021

This paper examined various stages and advantages of wooden additional floors from the perspective of Finnish housing and real estate companies through interviews with professionals involved in these projects. Main findings highlighted: (1) commercial conditions should be carefully analyzed for return on investment; (2) city plan change and the presence of a potential contractor and an expert were generally considered important issues; (3) considerations regarding city planning, parking spaces, load-carrying capacity, and new building codes were highlighted as critical factors for feasibility study; (4) existing building regulations and building rights regarding the subscription fee and tax issues should be considered during project planning; (5) city plan change and building rights with different tendering conditions were reported as important parameters in implementation planning; (6) an efficient flow of information between the parties involved was vital to the successful progres...

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved