Saade, M R M; da Silva, M G; Gomes, V; Franco, H G; Schwamback, D and Lavor, B (2014) Material eco-efficiency indicators for Brazilian buildings. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 3(1), pp. 54-71. ISSN 2046-6099
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a set of lifecycle-based indicators to describe material eco-efficiency of buildings normalized per unit of gross floor area (GFA), and at verifying feasibility of their calculation for building materials and components, based upon four case studies. The paper also examines the effects that discrepancies between two carbon footprint accounting methods (embodied CO2 (ECO2) vs embodied CO2e) have on communication of environmental performance of selected materials. Design/methodology/approach – The lifecycle assessments (LCAs) were performed through LCA support platform SimaPro 7.3. Data for materials/components production cycle modeling were collected from primary and secondary data from national literature or adapted from Ecoinvent database. Embodied energy, ECO2, blue water footprint (bWF), non-renewable content and volatile organic compound emissions (VOCe) indicators were calculated from lifecycle inventory (LCI) outputs, while embodied CO2e was calculated using CML 2001 v.2.01 impact assessment method. Findings – Obtained results suggest that a core database comprised of 12 materials and components – cement, ceramic blocks, steel rebar, sawn timber planks, PVC tubes, plywood, PVC conduits, roof steel structure, roundwood, ceramic tiles, hydrated lime and adhesive mortar – provides a very reasonable description of a building’s embodied energy (99.63 percent), embodied CO2e (97.50 percent), bWF (96.26 percent), non-renewable content (97.53 percent) and VOCe (95.38 percent) profiles. Except for bWF of cement and concrete, substantial reductions in the metrics' values captured environmental advantages of partially substituting ground granulated blast furnace slag (ggbs) for clinker Portland. Originality/value – The disclosure of embodied energy and carbon, as well as of other environmental performance data at whole-building level (per unit of GFA) pointed out in this paper, allows comparability and helps to establish performance goals and benchmarks and to guide policy decisions. Following a coordinated methodological outline, future works are expected to evolve to gradually constitute a LCI database that enables the use of the proposed metrics and of LCA as decision-making tools in the building sector.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | carbon; ecoefficiency; embodied energy; indicators; material; water |
| Index terms: | lime, tube, accounting, impact assessment, slag, decision-making, methodology, furnace, database, gross floor area, secondary data, eco-efficiency, case study, platform, inventory, environmental performance, carbon footprint, mortars (material), steel structure, embodied energy, modelling, roof, rebar, building material, lifecycle |
| Subjects: | energy systems, economic analysis, project delivery, analytical methods, building materials, materials science, environmental impact, waste management, value management, data collection methods, mechanical systems, data management, decision analysis, building performance, inventory management, digital design, sustainability assessment, design practice, specialized materials and systems, research methods |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Construction Materials, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Supply Chain Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here