@Article{rjees449,
AUTHOR = {Mofolasayo, Adekunle},
TITLE = {A Comparison of Life Cycle Impact of Mass Timber and Concrete in Building Construction},
JOURNAL = {Research Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences},
VOLUME = {1},
YEAR = {2022},
NUMBER = {1},
PAGES = {47-72},
URL = {https://www.scipublications.com/journal/index.php/WJCEA/article/view/449},
ISSN = {2770-5536},
DOI = {10.31586/wjcea.2022.449},
ABSTRACT = {Life cycle assessment, LCA is one of the tools that is used to measure the environmental impacts of a process or an operation. Various studies have mentioned the benefits of mass timber in building construction. This study presents an evaluation of the LCA of certain mass timber in relation to concrete-based materials. Using Athena impact estimator for buildings, the study compared the results of an LCA study for a house that is designed with concrete beams, concrete columns, and concrete walls with brick in the envelope category (Material group 1) with those that are made with glulam beams, glulam columns, CLT walls with spruce wood bevel siding (Material group 2), and another building with LVL columns, LVL beams, CLT walls with spruce wood bevel siding (Material group 3). The results are in line with those that were reported by the majority of previous researchers. For the location that is being reviewed (Calgary, Alberta), the designs showed that construction with wood materials having mass timber components will have a better environmental performance than that for a building design with more concrete-based materials. The building design with more concrete-based material (group 1) showed 242% and 60% higher global warming and acidification potential respectively than the building with glulam beams and columns (material group 2). Except for ozone depletion potential, material group 2 (with glulam beams and columns) has a lower impact than material group 3 (with LVL/PSL beams and columns). The differences in impacts are more pronounced when the comparison is with design with more concrete-based products. This report further shows that LCA can be helpful during the preliminary design to evaluate the expected environmental impacts of the choice of different materials. This study recommends that material manufacturers and building contractors pay attention to LCA results to evaluate areas for continuous improvement.},
}

%0 Journal Article
%A Mofolasayo, Adekunle
%D 2022
%J Research Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences

%@ 2770-5536
%V 1
%N 1
%P 47-72

%T A Comparison of Life Cycle Impact of Mass Timber and Concrete in Building Construction
%M doi:10.31586/wjcea.2022.449
%U https://www.scipublications.com/journal/index.php/WJCEA/article/view/449

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Mofolasayo, Adekunle
TI  - A Comparison of Life Cycle Impact of Mass Timber and Concrete in Building Construction
T2  - Research Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences
PY  - 2022
VL  - 1
IS  - 1
SN  - 2770-5536
SP  - 47
EP  - 72
UR  - https://www.scipublications.com/journal/index.php/WJCEA/article/view/449
AB  - Life cycle assessment, LCA is one of the tools that is used to measure the environmental impacts of a process or an operation. Various studies have mentioned the benefits of mass timber in building construction. This study presents an evaluation of the LCA of certain mass timber in relation to concrete-based materials. Using Athena impact estimator for buildings, the study compared the results of an LCA study for a house that is designed with concrete beams, concrete columns, and concrete walls with brick in the envelope category (Material group 1) with those that are made with glulam beams, glulam columns, CLT walls with spruce wood bevel siding (Material group 2), and another building with LVL columns, LVL beams, CLT walls with spruce wood bevel siding (Material group 3). The results are in line with those that were reported by the majority of previous researchers. For the location that is being reviewed (Calgary, Alberta), the designs showed that construction with wood materials having mass timber components will have a better environmental performance than that for a building design with more concrete-based materials. The building design with more concrete-based material (group 1) showed 242% and 60% higher global warming and acidification potential respectively than the building with glulam beams and columns (material group 2). Except for ozone depletion potential, material group 2 (with glulam beams and columns) has a lower impact than material group 3 (with LVL/PSL beams and columns). The differences in impacts are more pronounced when the comparison is with design with more concrete-based products. This report further shows that LCA can be helpful during the preliminary design to evaluate the expected environmental impacts of the choice of different materials. This study recommends that material manufacturers and building contractors pay attention to LCA results to evaluate areas for continuous improvement.
DO  - A Comparison of Life Cycle Impact of Mass Timber and Concrete in Building Construction
TI  - 10.31586/wjcea.2022.449
ER  -