Economic and environmental life cycle perspectives on two engineered wood products: comparison of LVL and GLT construction materials

被引:20
作者
Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard [1 ]
Sher, Willy [2 ]
Yeoh, David [1 ]
Yasin, Mohd Norazam [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Fac Civil & Environm Engn, Parit Raja 86400, Johor, Malaysia
[2] Univ Newcastle UON, Fac Engn & Built Environm, Sch Architecture & Built Environm, Univ Dr, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
关键词
Glued laminated timber (GLT); Sustainability; Laminated veneer lumber (LVL); Multi-criteria decision-making; Life cycle cost; Life cycle assessment; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; LAMINATED TIMBER; EMBODIED ENERGY; SUSTAINABILITY; OPTIMIZATION; INDUSTRY; DESIGN; SYSTEM; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1007/s11356-022-24079-1
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
The embodied carbon of building materials and the energy consumed during construction have a significant impact on the environmental credentials of buildings. The structural systems of a building present opportunities to reduce environmental emissions and energy. In this regard, mass timber materials have considerable potential as sustainable materials over other alternatives such as steel and concrete. The aim of this investigation was to compare the environment impact, energy consumption, and life cycle cost (LCC) of different wood-based materials in identical single-story residential buildings. The materials compared are laminated veneer lumber (LVL) and glued laminated timber (GLT). GLT has less global warming potential (GWP), ozone layer depletion (OLD), and land use (LU), respectively, by 29%, 37%, and 35% than LVL. Conversely, LVL generally has lower terrestrial acidification potential (TAP), human toxicity potential (HTP), and fossil depletion potential (FDP), respectively, by 30%, 17%, and 27%. The comparative outcomes revealed that using LVL reduces embodied energy by 41%. To identify which of these materials is the best alternative, various environmental categories, embodied energy, and cost criteria require further analysis. Therefore, the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method has been applied to enable robust decision-making. The outcome showed that LVL manufacturing using softwood presents the most sustainable choice. These research findings contribute to the body of knowledge about the use of mass timber in construction.
引用
收藏
页码:26964 / 26981
页数:18
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]   Environmental Impact Analysis on Residential Building in Malaysia Using Life Cycle Assessment [J].
Abd Rashid, Ahmad Faiz ;
Idris, Juferi ;
Yusoff, Sumiani .
SUSTAINABILITY, 2017, 9 (03)
[2]  
Abolghassem Tehrani M, 2017, COMP LIFE CYCLE ASSE
[3]  
Akasah ZA, 2011, PROCEEDING INT BUILD
[4]   Comparative life cycle assessment of cross laminated timber building and concrete building with special focus on biogenic carbon [J].
Andersen, Julie Hansted ;
Rasmussen, Nana Lin ;
Ryberg, Morten Walbech .
ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2022, 254
[5]   Comparative sustainability evaluation of two engineered wood-based construction materials: Life cycle analysis of CLT versus GLT [J].
Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard ;
Sher, Willy .
BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT, 2021, 204
[6]   Life cycle sustainability assessment of window renovations in schools against noise pollution in tropical climates [J].
Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard ;
Yeoh, David ;
Abidin, Ahmad Razin Zainal .
JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING, 2020, 32
[7]   Sustainability choice of different hybrid timber structure for low medium cost single-story residential building: Environmental, economic and social assessment [J].
Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard ;
Bin Marsono, Abdul Kadir ;
Khaleghi, Seyed Jalal .
JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING, 2018, 20 :235-247
[8]   Balancing of life cycle carbon and cost appraisal on alternative wall and roof design verification for residential building [J].
Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard ;
Bin Marsono, Abdul Kadir ;
Kermanshahi, Emad Kasra .
CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION-ENGLAND, 2018, 18 (03) :274-300
[9]   Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from residential sector by proposing new building structures in hot and humid climatic conditions [J].
Balasbaneh, Ali Tighnavard ;
Bin Marsono, Abdul Kadir .
BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT, 2017, 124 :357-368
[10]  
Balasbaneh AT, 2017, INT J SUSTAIN ENG, V10, P176, DOI 10.1080/19397038.2017.1293184