DOI: 10.5937/jaes0-32783
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY 4.0
Volume 20 article 943 pages: 377-385
This paper evaluates and compares the embodied energy and embodied carbon using a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach for three different intermediate floor structures, all of which use prefabricated materials—cross-laminated timber (CLT), precast hollow-core concrete, and solid concrete—to decide which floor construction materials have less environmental impact for use in the construction of a semi-detached house in the UK. The Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) and the Carbon Calculator tool were used to calculate the carbon footprint from “cradle to grave” to determine whether the use of a CLT solution provides improved environmental performance over the traditional concrete solutions. The carbon footprint results indicate that the use of a hollow-core precast concrete floor system emits less carbon than the other two systems, although the concrete requires more fossil fuel input than the timber during the manufacturing process, so based on this, the footprint from cradle to gate for the timber was expected to be the less than that of the concrete. However, the results show the opposite; this is because of the differences in the material quantities needed in each system.
1. Change, I. (2014). Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis.
2. Alrwashdeh, S.S. (2018). Assessment of photovoltaic energy production at different locations in Jordan. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research 8, 797-804.
3. Alrwashdeh, S.S. (2018). Modelling of operating conditions of conduction heat transfer mode using energy 2D simulation. International Journal of Online Engineering 14, 200-207.
4. Alrwashdeh, S.S., Alsaraireh, F.M., Saraireh, M.A., Markötter, H., Kardjilov, N., Klages, M., Scholta, J., and Manke, I. (2018). In-situ investigation of water distribution in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells using high-resolution neutron tomography with 6.5 μm pixel size. AIMS Energy 6, 607-614.
5. Alrwashdeh, S.S., Markötter, H., Haußmann, J., Scholta, J., Hilger, A., and Manke, I. (2016). X-ray tomographic investigation of water distribution in polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells with different gas diffusion media. In ECS Transactions, Volume 72, 8 Edition., pp. 99-106.
6. Asif, M., Muneer, T., and Kelley, R. (2007). Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Building and Environment 42, 1391-1394.
7. Brown, I.A., Hammond, G.P., Jones, I.C., and Rogers, F.J. (2009). Greening the UK building stock: Historic trends and low carbon futures 1970-2050. Trans Can Soc Mech Eng Transactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering 33, 89-104.
8. Hammond, G., and Jones, C.I. (2010). Embodied carbon: the concealed impact of residential construction. (Springer).
9. Berardi, U. (2017). A cross-country comparison of the building energy consumptions and their trends. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 123, 230-241.
10. Al-Falahat, A.a.M., Qadourah, J.A., Alrwashdeh, S.S., khater, R., Qatlama, Z., Alddibs, E., and Noor, M. (2022). Energy performance and economics assessments of a photovoltaic-heat pump system. Results in Engineering 13.
11. Giesekam, J., Barrett, J., Owen, A., and Taylor, P. (2014). The greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for materials used in UK construction. Energy Build. Energy and Buildings 78, 202-214.
12. Onat, N., and Kucukvar, M. (2020). Carbon footprint of construction industry: A global review and supply chain analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 124, 109783.
13. Hertwich, E. (2021). Increased carbon footprint of materials production driven by rise in investments. Nature Geoscience 14, 1-5.
14. Al-falahat, A. (2021). Examination of the Dynamic Behaviour of the Composite Hollow Shafts Subject to Unbalance. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research 10.
15. Al-Falahat, A.a.M. (2021). Examination of the Dynamic Behaviour of the Composite Hollow Shafts Subject to Unbalance. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research, 572-576.
16. Dixit, M.K., Fernández-Solís, J.L., Lavy, S., and Culp, C.H. (2010). Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review. ENB Energy & Buildings 42, 1238-1247.
17. Krausmann, F., Gingrich, S., Eisenmenger, N., Erb, K.H., Haberl, H., and Fischer-Kowalski, M. (2009). Growth in global materials use, GDP and population during the 20th century. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 68, 2696-2705.
18. de Ia Rue du Can, S., and Price, L. (2008). Sectoral trends in global energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy 36, 1386-1403.
19. Government, H. (2010). Low Carbon Construction, Innovation & Growth Team.
20. Ramesh, T., Prakash, R., and Shukla, K.K. (2010). Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy and Buildings 42, 1592-1600.
21. (IPCC), I.P.o.C.C. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC).
22. Giesekam, J., Barrett, J.R., and Taylor, P. (2015). Construction sector views on low carbon building materials. Building Research & Information 44, 423-444.
23. Robertson, A.B., Lam, F.C.F., and Cole, R.J. (2012). A Comparative Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Mid-Rise Office Building Construction Alternatives: Laminated Timber or Reinforced Concrete. Buildings 2, 245-270.
24. Zhou, S., Guo, Z., Ding, Y., Dong, J., Le, J., and Fu, J. (2021). Effect of Green Construction on a Building’s Carbon Emission and Its Price at Materialization. Sustainability 13, 642.
25. Wang, Z., Liu, Y., and Shen, S. (2021). Review on building life cycle assessment from the perspective of structural design. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1-17.
26. Liu, H., Li, J., Sun, Y., Wang, Y., and Zhao, H. (2020). Estimation Method of Carbon Emissions in the Embodied Phase of Low Carbon Building. Adv. Civ. Eng. Advances in Civil Engineering 2020.
27. Francart, N., and Malmqvist, T. (2020). Investigation of maintenance and replacement of materials in building LCA. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 588, 032027.
28. Hammond, G., and Jones, C. (2010). Embodied carbon: the concealed impact of residential construction. Volume 31. (Green Energy and Technology), pp. 367-384.
29. Hammond, G., and Jones, C. (2011). Embodied carbon : the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE), (Bracknell: BSRIA).
30. Spear, M., Hill, C., Norton, A., and Price, C. (2019). Wood in Construction in the UK: An Analysis of Carbon Abatement Potential. (Bangor University: The BioComposites Center).
31. (STA), S.T.A. (2017). Annual survey of UK structural timber markets. In Market report 2016.
32. Greenspec (2020). Crosslam timber/ CLT - Intermediate floor construction. Volume 2020.
33. Supplier, J. (2020). Insulation for ground floors. Volume 2020. ( Designing Buildings Wiki).
34. Lyons, A. (2020). Materials for architects and builders.
35. Cadorel, X., and Crawford, R. (2019). Life cycle analysis of cross laminated timber in buildings: a review.
36. Moncaster, A.M., and Symons, K.E. (2013). A method and tool for cradle to grave embodied carbon and energy impacts of UK buildings in compliance with the new TC350 standards. ENB Energy & Buildings 66, 514-523.
37. Lugt, P., Bongers, F., and Vogtlander, J. (2016). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTIONS MADE OF ACETYLATED WOOD.