| Title | Economic and environmental life cycle assessment of alternative mass timber walls to evaluate circular economy in building: MCDM method |
|---|---|
| ID_Doc | 5587 |
| Authors | Balasbaneh, AT; Sher, W |
| Title | Economic and environmental life cycle assessment of alternative mass timber walls to evaluate circular economy in building: MCDM method |
| Year | 2024 |
| Published | Environment Development And Sustainability, 26, 1 |
| Abstract | The construction industry is one of the largest consumers of energy and materials, which leads to it being one of the highest sources of environmental emissions. Quantifying the impact of building materials is critical if strategies for mitigating environmental deterioration are to be developed. The lifecycle assessment (LCA) consequential methodology has been applied to evaluate different methods of constructing residential double-story buildings. The ReCiPe methodology has been used for life cycle inventory. Three different forms of mass timber construction have been considered including cross-laminated timber (CLT), nail-laminated timber (NLT), and dowel-laminated timber (DLT). These have been assessed as load-bearing panels or wood frame construction. We evaluated the global warming potential (GWP), embodied energy, and cost to identify the building type with the lowest impacts. The results revealed that total CO2 emissions for mass timbers for the construction stage are 130 CO2/M-2, 118 CO2/M-2, and 132 CO2/M-2 of the panel for CLT, DLT, and NLT, respectively. The embodied energy emission is 1921 MJ/M-2, 1902 MJ/M-2, and 2130 MJ/M-2 related to the CLT, DLT, and NLT, respectively, for this stage. The results also indicated that the carbon emission of DLT is lowest compared to the other two alternatives in the manufacturing and construction stages. However, when the entire life cycle is considered, NLT is the most favorable material. However, based on the life cycle cost (LCC), DLT has a lower cost. Finally, multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) was used to normalize the results and compare the alternatives. This showed DLT to be the best alternative, followed by CLT and NLT. In conclusion, the selection of building materials needs to prioritize regulations to reduce environmental and economic impacts. |
Similar Articles
| ID | Score | Article |
|---|---|---|
26869
|
Kret-Grzeskowiak, A; Bruhn, S; Jensen, AAV; Birkved, M Quantifying the environmental impact of structural timber across multiple future lifecycles(2024)Discover Applied Sciences, 6, 4 | |
| 3219
|
Ahn, N; Dodoo, A; Riggio, M; Muszynski, L; Schimleck, L; Puettmann, M Circular economy in mass timber construction: State-of-the-art, gaps and pressing research needs(2022) | |
| 4435
|
Balasbaneh, AT; Sher, W; Ibrahim, MHW Life cycle assessment and economic analysis of Reusable formwork materials considering the circular economy(2024)Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 15, 4 | |
| 15568
|
Balasbaneh, AT; Ramadan, BS Integrating three pillars of sustainability for evaluating the modular construction building(2024) | |
| 19741
|
Andersen, CE; Rasmussen, FN; Habert, G; Birgisdottir, H Embodied GHG Emissions of Wooden Buildings-Challenges of Biogenic Carbon Accounting in Current LCA Methods(2021) | |
| 27590
|
Rios, FC; Grau, D; Chong, WK Reusing exterior wall framing systems: A cradle-to-cradle comparative life cycle assessment(2019) | |
| 2676
|
Joensuu, T; Leino, R; Heinonen, J; Saari, A Developing Buildings' Life Cycle Assessment in Circular Economy-Comparing methods for assessing carbon footprint of reusable components(2022) | |
| 20595
|
Hossain, MU; Ng, ST Influence of waste materials on buildings' life cycle environmental impacts: Adopting resource recovery principle(2019) | |
| 18338
|
Andersen, CE; Hoxha, E; Rasmussen, FN; Sorensen, CG; Birgisdottir, H Temporal considerations in life cycle assessments of wooden buildings: Implications for design incentives(2024) | |
| 6245
|
Tupenaite, L; Kanapeckiene, L; Naimaviciene, J; Kaklauskas, A; Gecys, T Timber Construction as a Solution to Climate Change: A Systematic Literature Review(2023)Buildings, 13, 4 |