Go to content

Wood in carbon efficient construction (€CO2)

Title of the research project: Wood in carbon efficient construction (€CO2)

Coordinator of the project Mr. Matti Kuittinen, Aalto University

Project period 01.12.2010 – 31.03.2013

URL of the project http://www.eco2wood.com

FUNDING

Total budget in EUR 2 119 931,50

PROJECT TEAM

Work Package 1

Leif Gustavsson, PhD M Linnaeus University Professor Sweden Ambrose Dodoo, PhD M Linnaeus University Senior Lecturer Sweden Roger Sathre, PhD M Linnaeus University Researcher Sweden Krushna Mahapatra, PhD M Linnaeus University Senior Lecturer Sweden Per-Erik Eriksson M SP Wood Technology Head of section Sweden Joakim Noren M SP Wood Technology Dr., LCA specialist Sweden Diego Peñaloza M SP Wood Technology Dr., LCA specialist Sweden

Work Package 2

Matti Kairi, Dr., M Aalto University Professor Finland Lauri Likosalmi, M.Sc. M Aalto University Researcher Finland Atsushi Takano, M.Sc. M Aalto University Researcher Finland Anna Fomkin, M.Sc. F Aalto University Researcher Finland

Work Package 3

Tarja Häkkinen, Dr. F VTT Senior principal scientist Finland Sirje Vares, M.Sc F VTT Senior scientist Finland Antti Ruuska, M.Sc M VTT Research scientist Finland Nusrat Jung, M.Sc F VTT Research scientist Finland Appu Haapio, Dr. F VTT Senior scientist Finland

Work Package 4

Winter, Stefan. Dr.-Ing M TU München Professor Germany Hafner, Annette. Dr.-Ing F TU München Researcher Germany Ott, Stephan. Dipl.-Ing. M TU München Researcher Germany Takano, Atsushi M Aalto University M.Eng. (Arch.), Researcher Finland Department of Forest Products Technology Kuittinen, Matti M Aalto University, M.Sc (Arch.) Researcher Finland Department of Architecture

Work Package 5

Tomi Toratti M VTT Dr., Senior researcher Finland Jesper Arfvidsson M Lund University Dr., Professor Sweden S Olof Mundt-Petersen M Lund University Researcher, PhD cand. Sweden Jorma Heikkinen M VTT M.Sc.(Eng), Senior Researcher Finland

Work Package 6 (also part of WP Austria)

Saana Tykkä F BOKU MA, Researcher Austria Gerhard Weiss M BOKU Dipl-Ing.Dr., Area leader Austria Alice Ludvig F BOKU Dr., Senior Researcher Austria 

Work Package Austria

Franz Dolezal, Dr M Holzforschung Senior researcher Austria Alexander Deutsch, DI M Holzforschung Researcher Austria Christina Spitzbart F Holzforschung Mag. (FH) Austria Sylvia Polleres, DI F Holzforschung Senior researcher Austria Rupert Wolffhardt, Ing. M Holzforschung Senior researcher Austria Hildegund Mötzl, Mag. F IBO Key researcher Austria Philipp Boogman, DI M IBO Senior researcher Austria Robert Stanek, DI M IBO Researcher Austria Astrid Scharnhorst, DI(FH) F IBO Researcher Austria Susanne Geissler, Mag.Dr F Austrian Energy Agency Senior researcher Austria Silke Mader, Dr. F Austrian Energy Agency Senior researcher Austria Maria Amtmann, DI F Austrian Energy Agency Researcher Austria Oskar Mair am Tinkhof M Austrian Energy Agency Junior researcher Austria Michael Klinski, DI M Austrian Energy Agency Senior researcher Austria

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Statements such as “wood is an environmentally friendly material” or “wooden houses can function as carbon storages” can sound very convincing but sometimes seem to lack concrete scientific proofs. The single chapters of this book have tried to bridge such gaps by applying concrete methods for defining carbon footprint of buildings during their full life cycles.

Therefore, chapter two (“Backgrounds”) has outlined two approaches towards Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)-measurements, namely attributional or consequential and has described the environmental policies, norms and standards that are currently framing such environmental assessments for the building sector.

There are several necessary parts and phases which must be included into such an analysis. Therefore the subsequent chapter three (“Greenhouse gas and primary energy balances”) presents definitions of the functional units, evaluation indicators as well as the system boundaries. Thus, LCA involves material and energy flows within and between different economic sectors including forestry, manufacturing construction, energy and waste management.

At the building level, chapter four (“Carbon footprint calculation methodology”) introduces in detail the following necessary information that is required for practical assessment of the environmental impact of whole buildings: Quantities and qualities of building materials, environmental impacts of products, energy demand of the building and energy supply systems. According to the situation, service life of building components and elements also has to be taken into account. Calculations of wooden-based building-systems are rather complex and sometimes practical simplifications may be required and are also proposed when they shall include only direct environmental effects from a building. The chapter suggest therefore a simple but accurate system-approach as the best starting point.

In order to cover the full value chain chapter five (“Environmental aspects of raw material supply and manufacturing”) complements these findings with the life cycle aspects at the wooden product level. It is most often the information on the single products that has to be compared when designing, planning and building a house. Here the assessment considered the extraction of raw materials, transportation and manufacturing stages of the products and discusses the impacts of different factors on the carbon footprint of sawn timbers. It suggests improvements for new eco-efficient solutions such as needs for different seasoning of timber but also a consideration of variations in saw mill-specific results.

Building up on the fundamentals of system boundaries for practical LCAs of whole buildings from chapter four, chapter six (“Good practices for carbon efficient wood construction”) demonstrates applied good practices for carbon efficient wood constructions. It outlines the design phase for low carbon wooden houses and evaluates the influence of the construction phase as well as different production phases (on-site versus off-site). Furthermore it demonstrates the influences of transportation and waste management, the influences of use and maintenance phase as well as the influences of end-of-life, deconstruction and recycling phases for wooden materials.

Subsequent chapter seven (“Service life and moisture safety”) outlines in detail possibilities for risk reduction of risks commonly attributed with wooden buildings. For a wooden building sufficiently long service life phases are necessary in order to compete with other buildings. Heat, moisture and air are interrelated and influence the service life of wooden buildings and therefore they have to be considered already in the planning phase. The chapter shows how moisture control and indoor environment shall be assessed and predicted and outlines five factors that unconditionally have to be considered for wooden buildings.

The final chapter six on case studies applies all findings with calculating the energy efficiency and carbon efficiency for eight wood-framed buildings from Austria, Finland, Germany, Italy and Sweden. It shows how the use of wood affects to carbon footprint and primary energy demand of wood-framed buildings.

Overall, our findings indicate that there are convincing advantages and potentials of using wood in construction for mitigating climate change, however, the current normative political framework in these emerging matters is still under development. The scientifically proven methods and measures for assessing the benefits of wood are extensively outlined and discussed in this book. The lifecycles of buildings involve a number of material and energy flows in different phases of the construction. These flows include forestry, transportation, manufacturing of products, construction, energy use, waste management and recycling. Especially for wooden buildings there is a considerable amount of information required and carbon footprint analysis is more complex than that of many other products. When the assessment focuses on the building itself, this book suggests practical system simplifications. It also outlines the changes that can be caused when different building designs are applied. The system boundaries and principles used for calculation can significantly influence the assessment results, therefore clear descriptions of all assessment assumptions and results are most fundamental requirements in all calculations. All case studies include the production phases and most include construction and end-of-life phases as well. For demonstration, use phases have been set to both 50 and 100 years. When case specific data was not available, Ecoinvent database was used.

From our findings we can conclude a number of insights for the use of wood in carbon efficient construction:

Full life cycle and energy chains should be considered with broad enough system boundaries to include all significant parts.

Simplified system boundaries are proposed for practical calculations of the direct environmental effects resulting from buildings.

Geographical and country specific differences have significant effects on carbon footprint of wood based products. Climatic differences have an impact on forest species and ways of logging and country specific energy mixes have an impact on CO2 emissions.

The book has demonstrated that country specific data should be made available and results should be presented separately for the different ways of accounting.

There should be optimal use of renewable energy sources in all phases of production and use phase.

Long-term and resource efficient use of wood for premium qualities, such as plywood, laminated wood and timber frame constructions are necessary for ensuring sustainable construction with wood.

Maintenance and material replacement have significant effects on durability of wooden buildings. The book lists out concrete moisture safety measures for an appropriate service life; these shall be already included in the design phase.

In the planning and design phase also the deconstruction, reuse and recycling of all products shall be considered.

Due to progressive technical developments, buildings might require less and less energy in the future. Thus, we foresee a shift in life cycle calculations from the use phase to the production phase. This is why efforts for reduction of carbon footprint and energy efficiency will become even more important for the construction phases of buildings. The present book is one step into this direction.

Life-cycle environmental impacts of a standard house and three log house cases

Antti Ruuska

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
P.O. Box 1000 (Tekniikantie 4 A, Espoo)
FI-02044 VTT, Finland
Tel. +358 20 722 111, fax +358 20 722 7001

ISBN 978-951-38-[…] (Soft back ed.) ISBN 978-951-38-[…] (URL: http://www.vtt.fi/publications/index.jsp)

VTT Technology [No.]

ISSN-L 2242-1211 ISSN 2242-1211 (Print) ISSN 2242-122X (Online)

Copyright © VTT 2013

A comparison of a typical Finnish house
and three ecological log house designs
with alternative external wall thicknesses

impacts of a typical Finnish wood framed house, called ‘standard house’. The calculation results are also presented for three alternative log house, with extensive use of wood and log products in structures. The log house cases vary only in their external wall log thickness. The results take into account the emissions from material acquisition, production and transportations, as well the emissions from construction phase.

The lifetime emissions are considered in terms of materials for repairs and renovations,and emissions from operational energy use over a life-cycle of 50 years. Also, theenergy use for demolition and removal of demolition waste from site is included inthe assessment. The results for the material production show that the greenhouse gas emissions of log houses are 40% lower than those of the standard house. Total GHG emissions for standard house are 25 tonnes (in terms of CO2-equ), whereas the emissions for log house scenarios are 15 tonnes. The structures of log house cases store 3.8 to 4.2 times the carbon of the standard house in their structures. The standard house stores some 14 tonnes of carbon dioxide, whereas the figures for log houses are 53 to 58 tonnes. According to the results, the energy content of the structures of log house casesis 2.6 to 2.9 that of the standard house. Energy content of standard house is 270 GJ, and the values for log houses vary from 720 GJ to 800 GJ. The mass of standard house is 88 tonnes, while the total mass of log housecases varies from 70 to 74 tonnes.
When the total lifetime emissions from material-related sources are considered,the results show that the greenhouse gas emissions of log houses are some 33%
lower than those of the standard house. Total emissions for standard house are 39 tonnes (in terms of CO2-equ emissions), whereas the emissions for log house
scenarios are some 26 tonnes. The total material need over the 50-year lifetime of standard house is 106
tonnes, while the material need of log house cases vary from 81 to 85 tonnes. The operational energy use of the log house cases of this publication is higherthan that of the standard house, due to differences in space-heating energy needs. This is caused by differences in U-values of external walls. This results in acarbon or bio-energy are made. If the carbon storage is credited in the calculation
of the carbon footprint, the differences between standard house and log houses diminish to a level of 0 to 10%.When both bioenergy and stored carbon are considered, the carbon footprint for standard house is 167 tonnes and for log house 200, 168 tonnes (CO2-equ). For log houses 243 and 270, the figures are 150 tonnes (CO2-equ), and 139 tonnes (CO2-equ), respectively. The results show that when both bio-energy of side-streams and structures and carbon credits are taken into account, the carbon footprint of log house 200 is at the same level as the standard house. The carbon footprint of the log houses 243 and 270 are 10 and 16% lower than that of the standard house. This publication also studies the so called total energy consumption figures, as defined in Finnish building regulations. The figure for standard house is 166 kWh/m2, and for the log houses 184 to 194 kWh/m2, when calculation is done as stated in regulations.
Two alternative calculations of theoretical nature are also made. Firstly, the bioenergy related to wood-based structures and their side-streams is taken into account
by assuming this bio energy could be used to replace heating energy use in the building. This is done by assigning the energy in wood-based structures an energy-type factor of 0.5, as in the Finnish building regulations. The results show that with these assumptions, the total energy figure for standard house is 164 kWh/m2. For log houses, the figures vary from 176 to 187 kWh/m2.
Secondly, bio-energy is taken into account by assuming it to be completely emission free bio-energy, thus using a value of zero for its energy type specific factor. The results show that the total energy figure for the standard house is
159 kWh/m2. For log houses, the figures vary from 156 to 169 kWh/m2.

Tiivistelmä
Tämä julkaisu esittelee elinkaaren aikaisten ympäristövaikutusten laskentatulokset suomalaiselle perustasoiselle ”normitalolle”. Tulokset esitetään lisäksi myös kolmelle hirsitaloratkaisulle, joissa puutuotteiden ja hirren käyttö on maksimoitu. Hirsitaloratkaisut poikkeavat toisistaan ulkoseinäpaksuuden osalta. Tulokset huomioivat rakennusmateriaalien raaka-ainehankinnan, tuotannon ja
kuljetuksen päästöt sekä rakentamisesta aiheutuvat päästöt. Elinkaarenaikaiset päästöt huomioivat korjausten ja uusimisten sekä käytönaikaisesta energiankulutuksesta
aiheutuvat päästöt 50 vuoden elinkaaren aikana. Myös elinkaaren lopussa tapahtuvasta purkutyöstä aiheutuvat päästöt sekä purkujätteen kuljetuksen päästöt on huomioitu laskennassa. Materiaalituotannosta aiheutuvat päästöt ovat hirsitaloilla noin 40 % matalammat kuin normitalolla. Tuotannon aiheuttamat kasvihuonekaasupäästöt normitalolla ovat 25 tonnia (CO2-ekvivalenttitonnia), kun ne ovat kaikilla hirsitaloskenaarioilla 15 tonnia. Hirsitalojen rakenteet sitovat itseensä 3,8–4,2-kertaisen määrän hiiltä normitaloon verrattuna. Normitalon rakenteisiin sitoutuu noin hiiltä 14 tonnia, kun hirsitalon rakenteisiin sitoutuneen hiilen määrä on 53–58 tonnia (CO2-
ekvivalenttitonnia). Laskennan hirsitalojen rakenteiden energiasisältö on 2,6–2,9- kertainen normitaloon verrattuna. Normitalon energiasisältö on 270 GJ, kun se on hirsitaloilla 720–800 GJ. Normitalon rakenteiden massa on 88 tonnia. Hirsitalojen rakenteiden massa vaihtelee välillä 70–74 tonnia. Koko 50 vuoden elinkaaren aikaisten materiaalipäästöjen tarkastelu osoittaa, että hirsitalojen kasvihuonekaasupäästöt ovat noin 33 % matalammat kuin normitalolla. Normitalon elinkaaren aikaiset kokonaispäästöt ovat 39 tonnia (CO2- ekvivalenttitonnia), kun taas hirsitalojen vastaavat päästöt ovat noin 26 tonnia. Rakennusmateriaalien kokonaistarve 50 vuoden elinkaaren aikana on normitalolla 106 tonnia, hirsitalojen materiaalitarpeen vaihdellessa välillä 81–85 tonnia. Tässä julkaisussa käytetyt käytönaikaisen energiankulutuksen arvot ovat hirsitaloilla korkeammat kuin normitalolla, mikä johtuu tilojen lämmitystarpeen erosta. Lämmitystarpeen ero syntyy erosta ulkoseinien U-arvoissa. Jos hirsitalojen sitoutunutta hiiltä tai bioenergiaa ei hyvitetä laskennassa, hirsitalojen hiilijalanjälki on 10–19 % suurempi kuin standarditalolla. Jos hiilivarasto huomioidaan laskennassa, on hirsitalojen hiilijalanjälki minimitapauksessa samaa tasoa (270 mm paksu ulkoseinä) kuin normitalolla. Maksimitapauksessa hirsitalon hiilijalanjälki on 10 % suurempi (200 mm ulkoseinäpaksuus) kuin normitalolla, kun hiilivarasto on huomioitu. Jos sekä hiilivarasto että bioenergiatarkastelut huomioidaan laskennassa, on normitalon hiilijalanjälki ja hirsirakenteiden hiilijalanjälki samaa tasoa ohuimmalla ulkoseinäpaksuudella (200 mm hirsiseinä). Käytettäessä 243 mm tai 270 mm paksuutta
hirsitalojen hiilijalanjälki on 10–16 % pienempi kuin normitalolla. Tässä julkaisussa tarkastellaan myös kokonaisenergialukuja Suomen rakentamismääräyskokoelman mukaisilla laskenta-arvoilla. Normitalolle laskettu kokonaisenergialuku
on 166 kWh/m2 ja hirsitaloille 184–194 kWh/m2.
Julkaisussa tehdään myös kaksi teoreettista tarkastelua. Ensiksi rakenteiden bioenergian merkitystä tarkastellaan teoreettisella tasolla, olettamalla että rakenteiden bioenergiaa voitaisiin käyttää korvaamaan tilojen lämmityksen energiatarvetta. Tämä käsitellään laskennassa käyttämällä tilojen lämmitysenergiaa korvaavalle bioenergialle rakentamismääräysten mukaista bioenergian kerrointa 0,5. Näillä laskentaoletuksilla normitalolle laskettu kokonaisenergialuku on 164 kWh/m2 ja hirsitaloille 176–187 kWh/m2. Toiseksi rakenteiden bioenergia käsitellään muuten samoin kuin edellä, mutta
bioenergialle käytetään määräyksistä poikkeavaa kerrointa ja sen energiamuodon kerroin oletetaan nollaksi. Näillä laskentaoletuksilla normitalon kokonaisenergialuku
on 159 kWh/m2 ja hirsitaloille 156–169 kWh/m2.