IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i8p6349-d1118114.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecological Potential of Building Components in Multi-Storey Residential Construction: A Comparative Case Study between an Existing Concrete and a Timber Building in Austria

Author

Listed:
  • Henriette Fischer

    (Research Unit of Ecological Building Technologies, Institute of Material Technology, Building Physics and Building Ecology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vienna University of Technology, A-1040 Vienna, Austria)

  • Martin Aichholzer

    (Department Building and Design, University of Applied Sciences Vienna, A-1100 Vienna, Austria)

  • Azra Korjenic

    (Research Unit of Ecological Building Technologies, Institute of Material Technology, Building Physics and Building Ecology, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vienna University of Technology, A-1040 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

With the introduction of energy-efficient buildings, the importance of embodied energy in new buildings has become increasingly relevant to minimising the impact of climate change. This study compares two existing four-storey residential buildings: one building has a reinforced concrete (RC) structure and the other has a timber structure. The study’s aim is to find out which building components are responsible for the largest embodied impacts and whether there are differences between the two construction methods. The specificity of the wooden building is the combined use of solid and lightweight timber elements. The methodology consists of a general life cycle assessment (LCA) and a more detailed analysis of the product stage using the eco2soft software. The heating and cooling energy demand was calculated using the WUFI Plus software with recent regional climate data sets. The results show that for both types of construction in multi-storey buildings, it is not only the superstructure that needs to be considered, but also the floor structures, which have a major influence on the embodied impact. The timber building requires less energy to maintain the indoor climate within the set temperatures. As climate change has progressed rapidly in Austria in recent years, it is recommended that the standards for climate models be updated more quickly to allow realistic prediction of thermal comfort at the design stage.

Suggested Citation

  • Henriette Fischer & Martin Aichholzer & Azra Korjenic, 2023. "Ecological Potential of Building Components in Multi-Storey Residential Construction: A Comparative Case Study between an Existing Concrete and a Timber Building in Austria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6349-:d:1118114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6349/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6349/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhongjia Chen & Hongmei Gu & Richard D. Bergman & Shaobo Liang, 2020. "Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building with an Equivalent Reinforced Concrete Alternative Using the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Roni Rinne & Hüseyin Emre Ilgın & Markku Karjalainen, 2022. "Comparative Study on Life-Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint of Hybrid, Concrete and Timber Apartment Buildings in Finland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Minunno, Roberto & O'Grady, Timothy & Morrison, Gregory M. & Gruner, Richard L., 2021. "Investigating the embodied energy and carbon of buildings: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of life cycle assessments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    4. Rabaka Sultana & Ahmad Rashedi & Taslima Khanam & Byongug Jeong & Homa Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha & Majid Hussain, 2022. "Life Cycle Environmental Sustainability and Energy Assessment of Timber Wall Construction: A Comprehensive Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-30, March.
    5. Diana Carolina Gámez-García & José Manuel Gómez-Soberón & Ramón Corral-Higuera & Héctor Saldaña-Márquez & María Consolación Gómez-Soberón & Susana Paola Arredondo-Rea, 2018. "A Cradle to Handover Life Cycle Assessment of External Walls: Choice of Materials and Prognosis of Elements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alberto Bezama & Jakob Hildebrandt & Daniela Thrän, 2021. "Integrating Regionalized Socioeconomic Considerations onto Life Cycle Assessment for Evaluating Bioeconomy Value Chains: A Case Study on Hybrid Wood–Concrete Ceiling Elements," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Shin, Bigyeong & Chang, Seong Jin & Wi, Seunghwan & Kim, Sumin, 2023. "Estimation of energy demand and greenhouse gas emission reduction effect of cross-laminated timber (CLT) hybrid wall using life cycle assessment for urban residential planning," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Mahboobeh Hemmati & Tahar Messadi & Hongmei Gu, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of Cross-Laminated Timber Transportation from Three Origin Points," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Kailun Feng & Weizhuo Lu & Thomas Olofsson & Shiwei Chen & Hui Yan & Yaowu Wang, 2018. "A Predictive Environmental Assessment Method for Construction Operations: Application to a Northeast China Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-28, October.
    5. Dahl Winters & Kwaku Boakye & Steven Simske, 2022. "Toward Carbon-Neutral Concrete through Biochar–Cement–Calcium Carbonate Composites: A Critical Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Kevin Allan & Adam R. Phillips, 2021. "Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment of Low and Mid-Rise Mass Timber Buildings with Equivalent Structural Steel Alternatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-15, March.
    7. Lachlan Curmi & Kumudu Kaushalya Weththasinghe & Muhammad Atiq Ur Rehman Tariq, 2022. "Global Policy Review on Embodied Flows: Recommendations for Australian Construction Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Yuki Fuchigami & Keisuke Kojiro & Yuzo Furuta, 2020. "Quantification of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Wood-Plastic Recycled Composite (WPRC) and Verification of the Effect of Reducing Emissions through Multiple Recycling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-13, March.
    9. Kofi Armah Boakye-Yiadom & Alessio Ilari & Daniele Duca, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Life Cycle Assessment on the Black Soldier Fly ( Hermetia illucens L.)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-29, August.
    10. Maaz Hassan & Naveed Usman & Majid Hussain & Adnan Yousaf & Muhammad Aamad Khattak & Sidra Yousaf & Rankeshwarnath Sanjay Mishr & Sana Ahmad & Fariha Rehman & Ahmad Rashedi, 2023. "Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment of Biomass Pellets Biofuel in Hazara Division, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-23, August.
    11. Bin Huang & Ke Xing & Rameez Rameezdeen, 2023. "Exploring Embodied Carbon Comparison in Lightweight Building Structure Frames: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-16, October.
    12. Cameron Wells & Roberto Minunno & Heap-Yih Chong & Gregory M. Morrison, 2022. "Strategies for the Adoption of Hydrogen-Based Energy Storage Systems: An Exploratory Study in Australia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-15, August.
    13. Shaobo Liang & Hongmei Gu & Richard Bergman, 2021. "Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building: A Case Study in Pacific Northwestern United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Marina Nikolić Topalović & Milenko Stanković & Goran Ćirović & Dragan Pamučar, 2018. "Comparison of the Applied Measures on the Simulated Scenarios for the Sustainable Building Construction through Carbon Footprint Emissions—Case Study of Building Construction in Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    15. Edgaras Linkevičius & Povilas Žemaitis & Marius Aleinikovas, 2023. "Sustainability Impacts of Wood- and Concrete-Based Frame Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-19, January.
    16. Yovanna Elena Valencia-Barba & José Manuel Gómez-Soberón & María Consolación Gómez-Soberón & Fernando López-Gayarre, 2020. "An Epitome of Building Floor Systems by Means of LCA Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-25, July.
    17. Francesco Asdrubali & Gianluca Grazieschi & Marta Roncone & Francesca Thiebat & Corrado Carbonaro, 2023. "Sustainability of Building Materials: Embodied Energy and Embodied Carbon of Masonry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-28, February.
    18. Jane Loveday & Gregory M. Morrison & David A. Martin, 2022. "Identifying Knowledge and Process Gaps from a Systematic Literature Review of Net-Zero Definitions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-37, March.
    19. Timothy M. O’Grady & Nicholas Brajkovich & Roberto Minunno & Heap-Yih Chong & Gregory M. Morrison, 2021. "Circular Economy and Virtual Reality in Advanced BIM-Based Prefabricated Construction," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-16, July.
    20. Franz Dolezal & Isabella Dornigg & Markus Wurm & Hildegund Figl, 2021. "Overview and Main Findings for the Austrian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6349-:d:1118114. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.