Massive wood material for sustainable building design: the Massiv–Holz–Mauer wall system

Published Date

Original article

First Online: 

28 June 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s10086-016-1570-7

Author

Silvia Santi, 

Francesca Pierobon, 

Giulia Corradini, 

Raffaele Cavalli, 

Michela Zanetti

Abstract

In this study, the emissions to air produced using massive wood material in manufacturing of a Massiv–Holz–Mauer (MHM) wall system have been assessed. The results have been compared with a traditional brick wall. The sustainability of materials was determined using the following impact categories: global warming potential (GWP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) and human toxicity potential (HTP). Using wood material in building design can reduce the environmental impact to air up to 59 % compared to using traditional material such as brick. The major contributions to the emissions of the MHM wall production are related to the sawmill process, to the manufacturing of fibreboards and aluminium nails. Furthermore, a displacement factor of 0.52 t CO2eq per ton of oven-dried wood for MHM building system used in place of the brick wall was determined for the considered system boundaries.

References

1. Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2009) Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr Build Mater 23:28–39CrossRef
2. 2.
   Zabalza Bribián I, Valero Capilla A, Aranda Usón A (2011) Life cycle assessment of building materials: comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ 46:1133–1140CrossRef
3. 3.
   Morel JC, Mesbah A, Oggero M, Walker P (2001) Building houses with local materials: means to drastically reduce the environmental impact of construction. Build Environ 36:1119–1126CrossRef
4. 4.
   Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S, Eickemeier P, Kriemann B, Savolainen J, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, Zwickel T (2014) IPCC 2014: climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
5. 5.
   Sartori I, Hestnes AG (2007) Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: a review article. Energy Build 39:249–257CrossRef
6. 6.
   Kayo C, Hashimoto S, Numata A, Hamada M (2011) Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by using wood to protect against soil liquefaction. J Wood Sci 57:234–240CrossRef
7. 7.
   Noda R, Kayo C, Sasaki T, Takaoku S (2014) Evaluation of CO2 emissions reductions by timber check dams and their economic effectiveness. J Wood Sci 60:461–472CrossRef
8. 8.
   Noda R, Kayo C, Yamanouchi M, Shibata N (2015) Life cycle greenhouse gas emission of wooden guardrails: a study in Nagano Prefecture. J Wood Sci 62:181–193CrossRef
9. 9.
   Pajchrowski G, Noskowiak A, Lewandowska A, Strykowski W (2014) Wood as a building material in the light of environmental assessment of full life cycle of four buildings. Constr Build Mater 52:428–436CrossRef
10. 10.
    Bedon C, Rinaldin G, Izzi M, Fragiacomo M, Amadio C (2015) Assessment of the structural stability of Blockhaus timber log-walls under in-plane compression via full-scale buckling experiments. Constr Build Mater 78:474–490CrossRef
11. 11.
    Germano F, Metelli G, Giuriani E (2015) Experimental results on the role of sheathing-to-frame and base connections of a European timber framed shear wall. Constr Build Mater 80:315–328CrossRef
12. 12.
    Laguarda Mallo MF, Espinoza O (2015) Awareness, perceptions and willingness to adopt cross-laminated timber by the architecture community in the United States. J Clean Prod 94:198–210CrossRef
13. 13.
    Evans L (2013) Cross laminated timber—taking wood buildings to the next level. Eng News-Record 41:1–12
14. 14.
    Urban jungle: wooden high-rises change city skylines as builders ditch concrete (2015). http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/dec/12/wood-high-rise-buildings-urban-architecture-skylines-new-york-city-oregon?CMP=share_btn_link. Accessed 02 Feb 2015
15. 15.
    European Technical Approval ETA-13/0799 (2013) MHM-Wall elements. Österreichisches Institut für Bautechnik, Vienna
16. 16.
    MHM production line. http://www.hundegger.de/en/machine-building/products/mhm-production-line. Accessed 21 Jan 2016
17. 17.
    Li SH, Xie H (2013) Building professionals’ attitudes towards the use of wood in building design and construction in Taiwan. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 71:497–505CrossRef
18. 18.
    Ximenes F, Grant T (2013) Quantifying the greenhouse benefits of the use of wood products in two popular house designs in Sydney, Australia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:891–908CrossRef
19. 19.
    Petersen AK, Solberg B (2005) Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between wood products and alternative materials: a review of micro-level analyses from Norway and Sweden. For Policy Econ 7:249–259CrossRef
20. 20.
    Buchanan AH, Honey BG (1994) Energy and carbon dioxide implications of building construction. Energy Build 20:205–217CrossRef
21. 21.
    Goverse T, Hekkert MP, Groenewegen P, Worrell E, Smits REHM (2001) Wood innovation in the residential construction sector; opportunities and constraints. Resour Conserv Recycl 34:53–74CrossRef
22. 22.
    Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2006) Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Build Environ 41:940–951CrossRef
23. 23.
    Sathre R, O’Connor J (2010) A synthesis of research on wood products and greenhouse gas impacts, 2nd edn. Technical Report TR-19R, FPInnovations, Vancouver, B.C. ISBN 978-0-86488-546-3
24. 24.
    Upton B, Miner R, Spinney M, Heath LS (2008) The greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 32:1–10CrossRef
25. 25.
    Sathre R, Gustavsson L (2009) Using wood products to mitigate climate change: external costs and structural change. Appl Energy 86:251–257CrossRef
26. 26.
    Hennigar CR, MacLean D, Amos-Binks LJ (2008) A novel approach to optimize management strategies for carbon stored in both forests and wood products. For Ecol Manage 256:786–797CrossRef
27. 27.
    Pingoud K, Pohjola J, Valsta L (2010) Assessing the integrated climatic impacts of forestry and wood products. Silva Fenn 44:155–175CrossRef
28. 28.
    Lipkke B, Elaine O, Harrison R, Skog K, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2011) Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilization on carbon mitigation: knowns and unknowns. Carbon Manag 2:303–333CrossRef
29. 29.
    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2003) Estimation, reporting and accounting of harvested wood products. Technical paper FCCC/TP/2003/7
30. 30.
    Sathre R, O’Connor J (2010) Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environ Sci Policy 13:104–114CrossRef
31. 31.
    Saavedra Flores EI, Dayyani I, Ajaj RM, Castro-Triguero R, DiazDelaO F, Das R, González Soto P (2015) Analysis of cross-laminated timber by computational homogenisation and experimental validation. Compos Struct 121:386–394CrossRef
32. 32.
    Lehmann S (2012) Sustainable construction for urban infill development using engineered massive wood panel systems. Sustainability 4:2707–2742CrossRef
33. 33.
    John S, Nebel B, Perez N, Buchanan A (2009) Environmental impacts of multi-storey buildings using different construction materials. Research report 2008-02. http://www.scnz.org/content/events/docs/MAF%20multistorey%20building%20report%20Final%208th%20June%202009.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
34. 34.
    Chen YJ (2012) Comparison of environmental performance of a five-story building built with cross-laminated timber and concrete. Sustainable Building Science Program, University of British Colombia. http://sbsp.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2012/07/SBSP-report-Jessie-Chen.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2016
35. 35.
    Robertson AB, Lam FCF, Cole RJ (2012) A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of mid-rise office building construction alternatives: laminated timber or reinforced concrete. Buildings 2:245–270CrossRef
36. 36.
    Paevere P, MacKenzie C (2006) Emerging technologies and timber products in construction—compendium of products and technologies. Australian Government—Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation, Victoria, Australia
37. 37.
    Bovea MD, Vidal R (2004) Materials selection for sustainable product design: a case study of wood based furniture eco-design. Mater Des 25:111–116CrossRef
38. 38.
    FBE Woodliving. Il muro di legno. http://www.fbe.it/1/sistema_mhm_3513057.html. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
39. 39.
    Corrado V, Ballarini I, Corgnati SP (2014) Building typology brochure—Italy (in Italian). Fascicolo sulla Tipologia Edilizia Italiana, nuova edizione, Politecnico di Torino—Dipartimento Energia Gruppo di Ricerca TEBE. http://episcope.eu/fileadmin/tabula/public/docs/brochure/IT_TABULA_TypologyBrochure_POLITO.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2016
40. 40.
    Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Dones R, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2005) The ecoinvent database: overview and methodological framework. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:3–9CrossRef
41. 41.
    Bovea MD, Gallardo A (2006) The influence of impact assessment methods on materials selection for eco-design. Mater Des 27:209–215CrossRef
42. 42.
    Ljungberg LY (2005) Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products. Mater Des 28:466–479CrossRef
43. 43.
    GaBi 6 software (2011) PE International, Stuttgart
44. 44.
    PAS 2050 (2011) Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution (BSI), London. (ISBN 978 0 580 71382 8)
45. 45.
    Pierobon F, Zanetti M, Grigolato S, Sgarbossa A, Anfodillo T, Cavalli R (2015) Life cycle environmental impact of firewood production—a case study in Italy. Appl Energy 150:185–195CrossRef
46. 46.
    Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer L, IPCC (2014): Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva, p 151
47. 47.
    US EPA (1995) Profile of the nonferrous metals industry. Publ EPA/310-R-95-010, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
48. 48.
    US EPA (1997) Chapter 11: mineral products industry, section 11.3. Brick and structural clay product manufacturing, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
49. 49.
    Monteiro H, Freire F (2012) Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: comparison of three impact assessment methods. Energy Build 47:572–583CrossRef
50. 50.
    Hassan OAB (2004) Application of value—focused thinking on the environmental selection of wall structures. J Environ Manag 70:181–187CrossRef
51. 51.
    Kram T, Gielen DJ, Bos AJM, de Feber MAPC, Gerlagh T, Groenendaal BJ, Moll HC, Bouwman ME, Daniels BW, Worrell E, Hekkert MP, Joosten LAJ, Groenewegen P, Goverse T (2001) The matter project—integrated energy and materials systems engineering for GHG emission mitigation. http://www.ecn.nl/unit_bs/etsap/reports/ecn/pub01017.html. Accessed 16 Dec 2015
52. 52.
    Marcea RL, Lau KK (1992) Carbon dioxide implications of building materials. J For Eng 2:37–43

For further details log on website :
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10086-016-1570-7