Life Cycle Assessment of Cross-Laminated Timber Transportation from Three Origin Points

Hemmati, Mahboobeh; Messadi, Tahar; Gu, Hongmei

doi:10.3390/su14010336

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[2] Carbon storage (tCO 2 e) = volume of wood (m 3 ) × density of wood (t/m 3 ) a × carbon content of wood b × molar ratio of CO 2 to C c Sixteen case studies of recent mass-timber buildings designed or built in the United States were included in this study because they contained consistent and sufficient data for the calculations (Gu et al 2021, Hemmati et al 2022, WoodWorks 2021. The case studies chosen are identified by their project name in Table 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2023

bpb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to concern over climate change, there is an increasing desire to limit new carbon dioxide emissions and to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Specific efforts include taxing carbon emissions, capping carbon emissions and selling emissions allowances, and rewarding activities that avoid new carbon emissions or that capture and store carbon from the atmosphere. Crosslaminated timber (CLT) is a relatively new product that enables mass timber construction to replace traditional construction materials in mid-to-high-rise buildings. Wood materials offer substantial "carbon benefits" by storing carbon in the product and by avoiding the large amounts of new carbon emissions associated with the use of fossil carbon-intensive material options (e.g., concrete and steel). In this analysis, we propose that the carbon benefits of mass timber construction could be valued as a carbon offset, much in the same way that the carbon savings of building a wind farm or solar power plant are currently being marketed for avoiding fossil-fuel electricity generation, or how additional forest growth is being sold as carbon storage. Using a range of carbon prices, we calculate the potential carbon offset values of some mass timber construction projects located in the United States. The estimated total carbon benefit, including avoided emissions and carbon storage in wood materials from those mass timber construction projects, averaged 0.38 tCO 2 e/m 2 of floor space, representing carbon values for projects ranging into the millions of dollars. Future trends in carbon prices will greatly affect the practical implications of any carbon offset program for mass timber construction.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2023

bpb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides these, all other supplementary materials used to comply with local codes were found to have negligible mass, representing only 1.2% and 0.94% of each total. These and other supplementary materials not included in this study (e.g., finishes, fixtures, or opening components) are typically found within the 0.5-2% margin of the total mass of multistory buildings [48,49].…”

Section: Materials Quantitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is primarily due to differences in transport distances, as MT components are brought from the Bio-Bio region (487 km) and concrete from within the MRS region (30 km). If unlike this scenario, MT were to be sourced from an established manufacturer overseas, for instance from Austria (Biderholz Company [48]), an additional 18 kg of CO 2 eq/m 2 would be emitted, generating at least 10% more emissions than when MT is produced locally. As shown in Figure 7b, for the installation module (A5), consistent with the higher mass of concrete compared to Pinus radiata (radiata pine, Appendix A), the larger contributor to global warming was the mainstream RC building, which, compared to its mass timber equivalent, increased emissions by around 118%, from 3.8 to 4.5 kg CO 2 eq/m 2 .…”

Section: Construction Stage (A4-a5)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, from the standpoint of their value as carbon sink, the MT building stores 447,000 kg CO 2 eq in its timber structure, leaving a negative net of 306,000 kg CO 2 eq from cradle to construction and 263,000 kg CO 2 eq when including space-conditioning energy use. To retain the sequestered carbon through end-of-life, crucial decisions not discussed here should be evaluated [48,53]. As a result, until end-of-life, the use of sustainably sourced wood products helps reduce GHGs of an MT building by as much as 300% and 118% that of a functionally equivalent mainstream RC building.…”

Section: Lifecyle Carbon Emissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Lifecycle Assessment of a Low-Energy Mass-Timber Building and Mainstream Concrete Alternative in Central Chile

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While high-rise mass-timber construction is booming worldwide as a more sustainable alternative to mainstream cement and steel, in South America, there are still many gaps to overcome regarding sourcing, design, and environmental performance. The aim of this study was to assess the carbon emission footprint of using mass-timber products to build a mid-rise low-energy residential building in central Chile (CCL). The design presented at a solar decathlon contest in Santiago was assessed through lifecycle analysis (LCA) and compared to an equivalent mainstream concrete building. Greenhouse gas emissions, expressed as global warming potential (GWP), from cradle-to-usage over a 50-year life span, were lower for the timber design, with 131 kg CO2 eq/m2 of floor area (compared to 353 kg CO2 eq/m2) and a biogenic carbon storage of 447 tons of CO2 eq/m2 based on sustainable forestry practices. From cradle-to-construction, the embodied emissions of the mass-timber building were 42% lower (101 kg CO2 eq/m2) than those of the equivalent concrete building (167 kg CO2 eq/m2). The embodied energy of the mass-timber building was 37% higher than that of its equivalent concrete building and its envelope design helped reduce space-conditioning emissions by as much as 83%, from 187 kg CO2 eq/m2 as estimated for the equivalent concrete building to 31 kg CO2 eq/m2 50-yr. Overall, provided that further efforts are made to address residual energy end-uses and end-of-life waste management options, the use of mass-timber products offers a promising potential in CCL for delivering zero carbon residential multistory buildings.

show abstract

“…There are few studies examining the role of transportation in the overall GWP of MTPs or mass timber buildings. Hemmati and others [18] conducted LCA on the transportation stage of CLT panels from three different origin points (Graz, Styria in Austria; Seattle, WA and Conway, AR in the USA) to a construction site located at Fayetteville, AR in the USA. Two software programs with different databases (SimaPro with Ecoinvent database, and Tally with Gabi database) were used in order to study the difference in the outputs of these programs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Case Study on the Impact of Transportation of Mass Timber Products on the Cradle-to-Gate LCA Results for an Institutional Building

Gu¹,

Gu²,

Gong³

et al. 2022

RPM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mass timber products (MTPs) are being adopted in new building constructions and remodels in the last three decades, credited to their renewable and low carbon footprint characteristics. However, there are no mass timber manufacturers currently existing in Atlantic Canada. Extended distances of transporting MTPs to this region from other Canadian provinces may sacrifice the environmental benefits of using MTPs. This study was aimed to understand, via conducting a cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment (LCA), the environmental impacts of a mid-rise institutional building, which is located in the Province of New Brunswick Canada. By comparing the current steel frame design of this building with an alternative mass timber building design with the same height range and function including the transportations of major building materials. It was found that the mass timber building design could still have environmental advantages over the steel structure, as much as 19.5% lower global warming impact and 16.8% lower ozone depletion impact, even with MTPs delivered from the furthest location considered in this study. However, the disadvantages in other impact categories, such as 31.9% higher smog impact, 13.6% higher acidification impact, and 248.2% higher eutrophication impact were found when using the TRACI impact assessment in this whole building LCA study.

show abstract

Life Cycle Assessment of Cross-Laminated Timber Transportation from Three Origin Points

Cited by 18 publications

References 28 publications

Untitled

Untitled

A Lifecycle Assessment of a Low-Energy Mass-Timber Building and Mainstream Concrete Alternative in Central Chile

A Case Study on the Impact of Transportation of Mass Timber Products on the Cradle-to-Gate LCA Results for an Institutional Building

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About