On the embodied carbon of structural timber versus steel, and the influence of LCA methodology
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment is key to mitigating climate change. This paper uses Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to explore whether glue-laminated timber (glulam) has a significantly lower whole-life embodied carbon (Global Warming Potential; GWP) than functionally-equival...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Building and environment 2021-12, Vol.206, p.108285, Article 108285 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 108285 |
container_title | Building and environment |
container_volume | 206 |
creator | Morris, Freya Allen, Stephen Hawkins, Will |
description | Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment is key to mitigating climate change. This paper uses Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to explore whether glue-laminated timber (glulam) has a significantly lower whole-life embodied carbon (Global Warming Potential; GWP) than functionally-equivalent structural steel. Alongside a baseline assessment that follows standard practice, a variety of further sensitivity analyses establish how differing assumptions affect results. Assessment found that the GWPs were highly dependent on: (1) the assumed end-of-life scenarios; (2) the approach used to consider biogenic CO2, and; (3) whether the timing of emissions was considered. In general, glulam had the lowest GWP when incinerated (with energy recovery) at end-of-life. However, when recycling is modelled according to current standards, glulam GWPs were in amongst those of steel, giving no clear ranking of materials. Landfilled glulam had a lower GWP than steel if some biogenic carbon was assumed to be permanently stored. That may be appropriate given recent guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but is not allowed in the updated standards for LCA of construction products (e.g. EN 15804:2019). Six additional impact categories were also assessed to give a broader environmental comparison. The relative impact of the two materials depended on the impact category assessed, with glulam generally having a similar or lower impact than steel. Given the findings of this paper, further research on end-of-life treatment and LCA methodology is critical to ensure that strategies aiming to reduce GWP by material selection are effective in practice.
•Functionally-equivalent LCA comparison of structural timber and steel.•Consideration of all possible end-of-life treatment options.•Exploration of how the timing of GHG absorptions and emissions affects results.•Clear summary of how methodology affects perceived climate performance. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108285 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2614642547</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0360132321006843</els_id><sourcerecordid>2614642547</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-9bf218a0eee36e245ab7f8b4bfb45f0df118584a92b2f8358b984c0b5a80697f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkN1LwzAUxYMoOKf_ggR8tTNfbdM3x_ALBntR8MmQtDcupWtm0g7239taffbpwr3ndy7nIHRNyYISmt3VC9O7poL2sGCE0WEpmUxP0IzKnCeZFO-naEZ4RhLKGT9HFzHWZAALLmboY9PibgsYdsZXDipc6mB8i73FsQt92fVBN7hzOwMBHyDEPg4HgOYW67b6QV1rmx7aEkZovVriHXRbX_nGfx4v0ZnVTYSr3zlHb48Pr6vnZL15elkt10nJpeySwlhGpSYAwDNgItUmt9IIY41ILakspTKVQhfMMCt5Kk0hRUlMqiXJitzyObqZfPfBf_UQO1X7PrTDS8UyKjLBUpEPqmxSlcHHGMCqfXA7HY6KEjV2qWr116Uau1RTlwN4P4EwZDg4CCqWboxcuQBlpyrv_rP4BkezgQA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2614642547</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>On the embodied carbon of structural timber versus steel, and the influence of LCA methodology</title><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Morris, Freya ; Allen, Stephen ; Hawkins, Will</creator><creatorcontrib>Morris, Freya ; Allen, Stephen ; Hawkins, Will</creatorcontrib><description>Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment is key to mitigating climate change. This paper uses Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to explore whether glue-laminated timber (glulam) has a significantly lower whole-life embodied carbon (Global Warming Potential; GWP) than functionally-equivalent structural steel. Alongside a baseline assessment that follows standard practice, a variety of further sensitivity analyses establish how differing assumptions affect results. Assessment found that the GWPs were highly dependent on: (1) the assumed end-of-life scenarios; (2) the approach used to consider biogenic CO2, and; (3) whether the timing of emissions was considered. In general, glulam had the lowest GWP when incinerated (with energy recovery) at end-of-life. However, when recycling is modelled according to current standards, glulam GWPs were in amongst those of steel, giving no clear ranking of materials. Landfilled glulam had a lower GWP than steel if some biogenic carbon was assumed to be permanently stored. That may be appropriate given recent guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but is not allowed in the updated standards for LCA of construction products (e.g. EN 15804:2019). Six additional impact categories were also assessed to give a broader environmental comparison. The relative impact of the two materials depended on the impact category assessed, with glulam generally having a similar or lower impact than steel. Given the findings of this paper, further research on end-of-life treatment and LCA methodology is critical to ensure that strategies aiming to reduce GWP by material selection are effective in practice.
•Functionally-equivalent LCA comparison of structural timber and steel.•Consideration of all possible end-of-life treatment options.•Exploration of how the timing of GHG absorptions and emissions affects results.•Clear summary of how methodology affects perceived climate performance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0360-1323</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-684X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108285</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Bio-based ; Carbon ; Carbon dioxide ; Climate change ; Climate change mitigation ; Embodied carbon ; Emission standards ; Emissions ; Emissions control ; End of life ; Energy recovery ; Global warming ; Glulam ; Greenhouse effect ; Greenhouse gases ; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ; Life cycle analysis ; Life cycle assessment ; Life cycles ; Materials selection ; Sensitivity analysis ; Steel ; Structural steels ; Timber ; Timber (structural) ; Urban environments</subject><ispartof>Building and environment, 2021-12, Vol.206, p.108285, Article 108285</ispartof><rights>2021</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Dec 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-9bf218a0eee36e245ab7f8b4bfb45f0df118584a92b2f8358b984c0b5a80697f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-9bf218a0eee36e245ab7f8b4bfb45f0df118584a92b2f8358b984c0b5a80697f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0148-6466</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108285$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Morris, Freya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawkins, Will</creatorcontrib><title>On the embodied carbon of structural timber versus steel, and the influence of LCA methodology</title><title>Building and environment</title><description>Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment is key to mitigating climate change. This paper uses Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to explore whether glue-laminated timber (glulam) has a significantly lower whole-life embodied carbon (Global Warming Potential; GWP) than functionally-equivalent structural steel. Alongside a baseline assessment that follows standard practice, a variety of further sensitivity analyses establish how differing assumptions affect results. Assessment found that the GWPs were highly dependent on: (1) the assumed end-of-life scenarios; (2) the approach used to consider biogenic CO2, and; (3) whether the timing of emissions was considered. In general, glulam had the lowest GWP when incinerated (with energy recovery) at end-of-life. However, when recycling is modelled according to current standards, glulam GWPs were in amongst those of steel, giving no clear ranking of materials. Landfilled glulam had a lower GWP than steel if some biogenic carbon was assumed to be permanently stored. That may be appropriate given recent guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but is not allowed in the updated standards for LCA of construction products (e.g. EN 15804:2019). Six additional impact categories were also assessed to give a broader environmental comparison. The relative impact of the two materials depended on the impact category assessed, with glulam generally having a similar or lower impact than steel. Given the findings of this paper, further research on end-of-life treatment and LCA methodology is critical to ensure that strategies aiming to reduce GWP by material selection are effective in practice.
•Functionally-equivalent LCA comparison of structural timber and steel.•Consideration of all possible end-of-life treatment options.•Exploration of how the timing of GHG absorptions and emissions affects results.•Clear summary of how methodology affects perceived climate performance.</description><subject>Bio-based</subject><subject>Carbon</subject><subject>Carbon dioxide</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Climate change mitigation</subject><subject>Embodied carbon</subject><subject>Emission standards</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Emissions control</subject><subject>End of life</subject><subject>Energy recovery</subject><subject>Global warming</subject><subject>Glulam</subject><subject>Greenhouse effect</subject><subject>Greenhouse gases</subject><subject>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</subject><subject>Life cycle analysis</subject><subject>Life cycle assessment</subject><subject>Life cycles</subject><subject>Materials selection</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Steel</subject><subject>Structural steels</subject><subject>Timber</subject><subject>Timber (structural)</subject><subject>Urban environments</subject><issn>0360-1323</issn><issn>1873-684X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkN1LwzAUxYMoOKf_ggR8tTNfbdM3x_ALBntR8MmQtDcupWtm0g7239taffbpwr3ndy7nIHRNyYISmt3VC9O7poL2sGCE0WEpmUxP0IzKnCeZFO-naEZ4RhLKGT9HFzHWZAALLmboY9PibgsYdsZXDipc6mB8i73FsQt92fVBN7hzOwMBHyDEPg4HgOYW67b6QV1rmx7aEkZovVriHXRbX_nGfx4v0ZnVTYSr3zlHb48Pr6vnZL15elkt10nJpeySwlhGpSYAwDNgItUmt9IIY41ILakspTKVQhfMMCt5Kk0hRUlMqiXJitzyObqZfPfBf_UQO1X7PrTDS8UyKjLBUpEPqmxSlcHHGMCqfXA7HY6KEjV2qWr116Uau1RTlwN4P4EwZDg4CCqWboxcuQBlpyrv_rP4BkezgQA</recordid><startdate>202112</startdate><enddate>202112</enddate><creator>Morris, Freya</creator><creator>Allen, Stephen</creator><creator>Hawkins, Will</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0148-6466</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202112</creationdate><title>On the embodied carbon of structural timber versus steel, and the influence of LCA methodology</title><author>Morris, Freya ; Allen, Stephen ; Hawkins, Will</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-9bf218a0eee36e245ab7f8b4bfb45f0df118584a92b2f8358b984c0b5a80697f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Bio-based</topic><topic>Carbon</topic><topic>Carbon dioxide</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Climate change mitigation</topic><topic>Embodied carbon</topic><topic>Emission standards</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Emissions control</topic><topic>End of life</topic><topic>Energy recovery</topic><topic>Global warming</topic><topic>Glulam</topic><topic>Greenhouse effect</topic><topic>Greenhouse gases</topic><topic>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</topic><topic>Life cycle analysis</topic><topic>Life cycle assessment</topic><topic>Life cycles</topic><topic>Materials selection</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Steel</topic><topic>Structural steels</topic><topic>Timber</topic><topic>Timber (structural)</topic><topic>Urban environments</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Morris, Freya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hawkins, Will</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Building and environment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Morris, Freya</au><au>Allen, Stephen</au><au>Hawkins, Will</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>On the embodied carbon of structural timber versus steel, and the influence of LCA methodology</atitle><jtitle>Building and environment</jtitle><date>2021-12</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>206</volume><spage>108285</spage><pages>108285-</pages><artnum>108285</artnum><issn>0360-1323</issn><eissn>1873-684X</eissn><abstract>Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment is key to mitigating climate change. This paper uses Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to explore whether glue-laminated timber (glulam) has a significantly lower whole-life embodied carbon (Global Warming Potential; GWP) than functionally-equivalent structural steel. Alongside a baseline assessment that follows standard practice, a variety of further sensitivity analyses establish how differing assumptions affect results. Assessment found that the GWPs were highly dependent on: (1) the assumed end-of-life scenarios; (2) the approach used to consider biogenic CO2, and; (3) whether the timing of emissions was considered. In general, glulam had the lowest GWP when incinerated (with energy recovery) at end-of-life. However, when recycling is modelled according to current standards, glulam GWPs were in amongst those of steel, giving no clear ranking of materials. Landfilled glulam had a lower GWP than steel if some biogenic carbon was assumed to be permanently stored. That may be appropriate given recent guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but is not allowed in the updated standards for LCA of construction products (e.g. EN 15804:2019). Six additional impact categories were also assessed to give a broader environmental comparison. The relative impact of the two materials depended on the impact category assessed, with glulam generally having a similar or lower impact than steel. Given the findings of this paper, further research on end-of-life treatment and LCA methodology is critical to ensure that strategies aiming to reduce GWP by material selection are effective in practice.
•Functionally-equivalent LCA comparison of structural timber and steel.•Consideration of all possible end-of-life treatment options.•Exploration of how the timing of GHG absorptions and emissions affects results.•Clear summary of how methodology affects perceived climate performance.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108285</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0148-6466</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0360-1323 |
ispartof | Building and environment, 2021-12, Vol.206, p.108285, Article 108285 |
issn | 0360-1323 1873-684X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2614642547 |
source | Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Bio-based Carbon Carbon dioxide Climate change Climate change mitigation Embodied carbon Emission standards Emissions Emissions control End of life Energy recovery Global warming Glulam Greenhouse effect Greenhouse gases Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Life cycle analysis Life cycle assessment Life cycles Materials selection Sensitivity analysis Steel Structural steels Timber Timber (structural) Urban environments |
title | On the embodied carbon of structural timber versus steel, and the influence of LCA methodology |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T16%3A49%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On%20the%20embodied%20carbon%20of%20structural%20timber%20versus%20steel,%20and%20the%20influence%20of%20LCA%20methodology&rft.jtitle=Building%20and%20environment&rft.au=Morris,%20Freya&rft.date=2021-12&rft.volume=206&rft.spage=108285&rft.pages=108285-&rft.artnum=108285&rft.issn=0360-1323&rft.eissn=1873-684X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108285&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2614642547%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2614642547&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0360132321006843&rfr_iscdi=true |