Building materials in the operational phase: Impacts of direct carbon exchanges and hygrothermal effects

Anne Sigrid Nordby, Andrew D Shea

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 14 Citations

Abstract


How sustainable are the various building materials, and what are the criteria for assessment? The scope of this article is to explore in what ways responsible and conscious use of materials can yield environmental benefits in buildings. In particular, it discusses how material properties related to thermal and hygroscopic mass can be utilized for achieving energy efficiency and good indoor air quality, and how these gains can be included into the context of life cycle assessment (LCA).


A case study investigates and compares carbon impacts related to three design concepts for an exterior wall: (A) concrete/rock wool; (B) wood studs/wood fiber; and (C) wood studs/hemp lime. The thermal performance of concepts B and C are modeled to comply with concept A regarding both thermal transmittance (U-value) and dynamic heat flow (Q24h) using the design tool WUFI Pro. An environmental cost-benefit analysis is then accomplished in four steps, regarding (1) manufacturing and transport loads, (2) carbon sequestration in plant-based materials and recarbonation in concrete/lime, and (3 and 4) potentially reduced operational energy consumption caused by heat and moisture buffering. The input data are based on suggested values and effects found in the literature.


The summarized results show that wall A has the highest embodied carbon and the lowest carbon storage and recarbonation effects, whereas wall C2 has the lowest embodied carbon and the highest carbon storage and recarbonation effects. Regarding buffering effects, wall A has the highest potential for thermal buffering, whereas wall C has the highest potential for moisture buffering.
LanguageEnglish
Pages763-776
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Industrial Ecology
Volume17
Issue number5
Early online date28 Aug 2013
DOIs
StatusPublished - Oct 2013

Fingerprint

buffering
carbon sequestration
carbon
heat
lime
life cycle assessment
moisture
cost-benefit analysis
energy consumption
transmittance
Values
indoor air
building
manufacturing
energy efficiency
heat flow
air
energy
air quality
efficiency

Cite this

Building materials in the operational phase : Impacts of direct carbon exchanges and hygrothermal effects. / Nordby, Anne Sigrid; Shea, Andrew D.

In: Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 17, No. 5, 10.2013, p. 763-776.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{094f7c64ce2646048fc956ab3e5ea828,
title = "Building materials in the operational phase: Impacts of direct carbon exchanges and hygrothermal effects",
abstract = "How sustainable are the various building materials, and what are the criteria for assessment? The scope of this article is to explore in what ways responsible and conscious use of materials can yield environmental benefits in buildings. In particular, it discusses how material properties related to thermal and hygroscopic mass can be utilized for achieving energy efficiency and good indoor air quality, and how these gains can be included into the context of life cycle assessment (LCA). A case study investigates and compares carbon impacts related to three design concepts for an exterior wall: (A) concrete/rock wool; (B) wood studs/wood fiber; and (C) wood studs/hemp lime. The thermal performance of concepts B and C are modeled to comply with concept A regarding both thermal transmittance (U-value) and dynamic heat flow (Q24h) using the design tool WUFI Pro. An environmental cost-benefit analysis is then accomplished in four steps, regarding (1) manufacturing and transport loads, (2) carbon sequestration in plant-based materials and recarbonation in concrete/lime, and (3 and 4) potentially reduced operational energy consumption caused by heat and moisture buffering. The input data are based on suggested values and effects found in the literature. The summarized results show that wall A has the highest embodied carbon and the lowest carbon storage and recarbonation effects, whereas wall C2 has the lowest embodied carbon and the highest carbon storage and recarbonation effects. Regarding buffering effects, wall A has the highest potential for thermal buffering, whereas wall C has the highest potential for moisture buffering.",
author = "Nordby, {Anne Sigrid} and Shea, {Andrew D}",
year = "2013",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/jiec.12046",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "763--776",
journal = "Journal of Industrial Ecology",
issn = "1088-1980",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Building materials in the operational phase

T2 - Journal of Industrial Ecology

AU - Nordby, Anne Sigrid

AU - Shea, Andrew D

PY - 2013/10

Y1 - 2013/10

N2 - How sustainable are the various building materials, and what are the criteria for assessment? The scope of this article is to explore in what ways responsible and conscious use of materials can yield environmental benefits in buildings. In particular, it discusses how material properties related to thermal and hygroscopic mass can be utilized for achieving energy efficiency and good indoor air quality, and how these gains can be included into the context of life cycle assessment (LCA). A case study investigates and compares carbon impacts related to three design concepts for an exterior wall: (A) concrete/rock wool; (B) wood studs/wood fiber; and (C) wood studs/hemp lime. The thermal performance of concepts B and C are modeled to comply with concept A regarding both thermal transmittance (U-value) and dynamic heat flow (Q24h) using the design tool WUFI Pro. An environmental cost-benefit analysis is then accomplished in four steps, regarding (1) manufacturing and transport loads, (2) carbon sequestration in plant-based materials and recarbonation in concrete/lime, and (3 and 4) potentially reduced operational energy consumption caused by heat and moisture buffering. The input data are based on suggested values and effects found in the literature. The summarized results show that wall A has the highest embodied carbon and the lowest carbon storage and recarbonation effects, whereas wall C2 has the lowest embodied carbon and the highest carbon storage and recarbonation effects. Regarding buffering effects, wall A has the highest potential for thermal buffering, whereas wall C has the highest potential for moisture buffering.

AB - How sustainable are the various building materials, and what are the criteria for assessment? The scope of this article is to explore in what ways responsible and conscious use of materials can yield environmental benefits in buildings. In particular, it discusses how material properties related to thermal and hygroscopic mass can be utilized for achieving energy efficiency and good indoor air quality, and how these gains can be included into the context of life cycle assessment (LCA). A case study investigates and compares carbon impacts related to three design concepts for an exterior wall: (A) concrete/rock wool; (B) wood studs/wood fiber; and (C) wood studs/hemp lime. The thermal performance of concepts B and C are modeled to comply with concept A regarding both thermal transmittance (U-value) and dynamic heat flow (Q24h) using the design tool WUFI Pro. An environmental cost-benefit analysis is then accomplished in four steps, regarding (1) manufacturing and transport loads, (2) carbon sequestration in plant-based materials and recarbonation in concrete/lime, and (3 and 4) potentially reduced operational energy consumption caused by heat and moisture buffering. The input data are based on suggested values and effects found in the literature. The summarized results show that wall A has the highest embodied carbon and the lowest carbon storage and recarbonation effects, whereas wall C2 has the lowest embodied carbon and the highest carbon storage and recarbonation effects. Regarding buffering effects, wall A has the highest potential for thermal buffering, whereas wall C has the highest potential for moisture buffering.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885481780&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12046

U2 - 10.1111/jiec.12046

DO - 10.1111/jiec.12046

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 763

EP - 776

JO - Journal of Industrial Ecology

JF - Journal of Industrial Ecology

SN - 1088-1980

IS - 5

ER -