nach oben

European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

Erschienen in:

Open Access 30.09.2022 | Original Article

Comparative LCA study of wood and mineral non-residential buildings in Germany and related substitution potential

verfasst von: Annette Hafner, Özlem Özdemir

Erschienen in: European Journal of Wood and Wood Products | Ausgabe 1/2023

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Patentsuche

Aus

Abstract

The construction sector is a central source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Reducing environmental impacts along the life cycle of buildings is therefore an important target. Given recent innovations in low-energy buildings and energy supply systems with low climate impacts, additional reduction potential can mainly be found in mitigating GHG emissions in other life cycle stages. The focus of mitigation has thus shifted to emissions related to material input, and comparative life cycle analyses of buildings constructed with different material types are becoming increasingly relevant in guiding regulations to achieve emission reduction targets. This paper performs comparative life cycle assessments for 48 non-residential buildings, comparing GHG emissions according to the current European standardised calculation methods. A substitution potential is introduced to evaluate the advantage of using timber as a building material. Furthermore, a comparative method is presented for assessing the substitution potential on the building level. The results show that the substitution potential for the construction of the studied buildings ranges from 5 to 48%. Specific substitution potentials are differentiated between four subcategories of non-residential buildings. The lowest substitution potential was identified for agricultural buildings and the highest for office and administration buildings. Moreover, the current research shows that the specific materials, construction, the geometry and design all affect the substitution potential of a building. On the basis of these values, it is possible to make projections regarding GHG reduction potential in the construction sector on a national scale.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

1 Introduction

One outcome of the 2015 Paris Agreement (UN 2015) is that climate protection has increasingly focused on closing carbon cycles and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The construction sector was identified as one important player, as the sector accounts for approximately 50 per cent of total primary energy consumption in the European Union (EC 2014). In the pursuit of carbon neutrality, the construction sector needs to balance emissions and removals of carbon. Recent policy developments in the European Union (EU), as reported by Frischknecht et al. (2019), tend towards setting top-down carbon quotas for buildings. Using this approach, the carbon budget for the construction sector is derived, for example, from the nationally determined contributions of the Paris Agreement (UN 2015) or from comparable climate legislation.

Reducing environmental impacts along the life cycle of buildings is thus an important target for climate change mitigation. Given recent innovations in low-energy buildings and energy supply systems with low climate impacts, additional reduction potential can mainly be found in mitigating GHG emissions in other life cycle stages. The focus, therefore, has shifted to emissions related to material input (Weißenberger et al. 2014). Numerous building life cycle assessment (LCA) studies published by different international stakeholders have compared, for example, conventional buildings and timber buildings to ascertain specific advantages and specificities of the latter (Takano et al. 2014; Heeren et al. 2015; Dodoo et al. 2012; Buyle et al. 2013; Cabeza et al. 2014; König 2016).

Because these studies differ significantly in scope, approach, system boundaries and database, they cannot be easily compared. They all, however, demonstrate that, on the level of construction material in the production stage, wooden materials hold advantages in terms of carbon storage capacity (named “biogenic GWP” in EN 15804:2020), and therefore result in lower GHG emissions in the production stage. They also reveal that calculations over the entire building life cycle show a slightly different picture: Advantages of wooden materials are generated mainly through benefits outside system boundaries, after the end of life (EOL) of the building is reached.

In Europe, EN 15978:2011(EN 2012) is a widely accepted framework to specify the assessment of environmental performance of buildings in LCA. Through dividing life cycles into modules, there is general agreement within the scientific community on calculating the benefits regarding energy recovery separately, as well as to further show all potential benefits, like recycling outside the life cycle of the building. This principle is also applied on the product level EN 15804:2012 + A1:2013 (EN 2014b). Less than a handful of studies (for example, Hafner et al. 2017, Eberhardt et al. 2019, Emami et al. 2019), however, comply with the current standards in European LCA calculations.

Hafner et al. (2017) introduced a substitution potential to evaluate the advantage of using timber as a building material. Their calculations and the related data so far mainly assess residential buildings (Hafner and Schäfer 2017). Thus, there is a lack of reliable data to quantify the possible substitution potential of non-residential buildings.

Additionally, there is a lack of data on average carbon storage capacity for such non-residential buildings. Carbon storage itself is balanced out over the life cycle, as carbon storage is calculated as benefit (−1) in the production stage and as emission (+ 1) at the end-of-life stage. Nevertheless, carbon storage benefits exist as long as the buildings exist and can be extended into the next life cycle if products are reused or their materials recycled without losing their carbon content (Hafner and Schäfer 2018). While substitution and temporary carbon storage capacity can be demonstrated on a building level, climate protection goals can only be applied to the entire national-wide construction sector through scaling up to a national statistical level.

The second period of the Kyoto-Protocol (2013–2020) alongside the Paris Agreement made the inclusion of forest management and harvested wood products in the calculations of Global Warming Potential (GWP) compulsory (UBA 2020). These accords stipulate that temporary and dynamic changes in the carbon pool of harvested wood are factors to be taken into consideration. According to Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, deductions are applied only on a national level and for domestic wood use only (Rüter 2017), thus accounting for the use of wood material in the construction sector. Quantifying expected climate impacts deriving from the increased material use of timber is therefore relevant on a national scale and can enhance the carbon sink of the forest sector. Robust and reproducible substitution potential data for calculating the climate impact of changes in material use in the construction sector are therefore essential to extrapolating data to a national level.

The potential global climate benefits of wood construction have been modelled, for example, by Churkina et al. (2020) and Amiri et al. (2020). Several studies provide models of the national implications of carbon storage. Hafner and Rüter (2018), for example, reported the potential GHG impact of wood consumption in the construction sector in Germany based on an expected future increase in the market share of timber in residential buildings. They also quantified the reduction potential through substituting energy intensive materials with a material choice with lower emissions, showing that there is a substantial potential to lower the GHG emissions through using timber in buildings (Hafner and Schäfer 2017). Kalt (2018) presented a similar approach and similar effects for Austria, showing the influence of increased carbon storage in timber buildings. Kalt (2018) and Vares et al. (2017) discussed the potentials for Finland. On the European level, Rüter et al. (2016) quantified the various ways in which the EU forest sector contributes to climate change mitigation. Through scenario analysis, consequences for GHG balances in the EU for possible policy choices are presented. A precondition for increased timber use is, of course, sustainable forestry alongside parallel active reforestation.

This paper thus redresses the lack of robust and comparable LCA data on non-residential building stock according to a consistent framework and standards. The objective is to determine the substitution potential for newly constructed non-residential buildings and close the existing lack of data. The data made available can be combined with statistical building data from the construction sector to calculate substitution potentials on a national level. The method for calculating substitution potential has proven to be reliable for estimating the impact of the shift from mineral buildings to timber buildings on a national level.

2 Method

The LCA results are presented in GHG reduction potential [kg CO₂ eq.] at building level for non-residential buildings. The arrangement in groups of non-residential buildings follows the structure of calculations from the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis 2017) and is divided into four main groups: office and administration buildings, agricultural buildings, non-agricultural buildings and other non-residential buildings. The LCA calculations were performed following the general standards ISO 14040:2009 (ISO 2009) and ISO 14044:2018 (ISO 2018) and the standard at the building level EN 15978:2011 (EN 2012). The methodological approach is based on Hafner et al. (2017) and Hafner and Schäfer (2017) and adheres to the same rules and framework as the above-mentioned studies.

Based on the same modular approach to life cycle stages, the implementation of LCA is regulated and standardized in Europe through EN 15978:2011(EN 2012) at the building level. Within the scope of standardization, uniform calculation rules are defined and the modules to be considered are specified. The life cycle herby is divided into module A (product stage), module B (operational stage), module C (end-of-life) and an additional module D (benefits and loads beyond system boundaries). For the current research the database: Oekobau.dat Version 2017-I (BBSR 2018) was used. Datasets that do not provide information on module C or D were supplemented by generic EOL datasets from Oekobau.dat in accordance with the EOL rules of the German certification systems BNB and DGNB (BBSR 2015; DGNB 2015). The table “Service life of building elements…”, published by the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community, defines the maintenance and replacement cycles for building components [BBSR 2017]. The LCAs were calculated over a life cycle of 50 years according to the German assessment system for sustainable construction (BBSR 2015). LCA calculations were performed with the LCA-tool LEGEP (Ascona 2018), a tool specially designed for the building sector. For further detailed information, see Hafner et al. (2017) and Hafner and Schäfer (2017).

2.1 Functional unit of buildings

For the product system “building”, the functional unit over the life cycle of 50 years is set at 1 m² gross external area (GEA). The definition of a functional equivalent establishes the comparability of the life cycle assessment results. Construction types such as Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) and timber frame are grouped within the term “timber building”. The term “mineral building” groups the construction types of brick, sand-lime brick, porous concrete and reinforced concrete. The classification of individual elements into a group of construction elements and finishing elements is shown in Table 1. The differences between the timber and mineral buildings are found in the construction elements. Therefore, only the construction elements are highlighted in Table 1 and considered, since the same finishing elements could be chosen for all buildings independently of the primary construction material (mineral or timber). The fulfilment of the minimum technical and functional requirements is ensured by the functional equivalent. All analysed buildings comply with the minimum legal requirements and the state of the art and thus meet the structural safety and load-bearing capacity of the structure. Requirements for fire protection according to the building regulations and sound insulation are likewise fulfilled. Furthermore, buildings that are subject to the Energy Conservation Act (EnEV, 2009) meet at least the requirements from 2009 and thus achieve the structural physical prerequisites in all seasons. In addition, the buildings that are compared with each other have the same technical equipment for heating and hot water generation.

The essential requirements of the building elements and the minimum standard over the entire life cycle of a building is established via the functional equivalent. The different types of construction lead to gradual differences in terms of exceeding certain minimum requirements (for example, fire protection requirements in mineral buildings). In some examples, fulfilling one minimum requirement leads to over fulfilling another requirement.

The indicator GWP of timber and mineral buildings is compared in order to determine substitution potential on the building level.

Table 1

Elements within the system boundary

Name	Elements	Classification
Building construction:
foundation	foundation, sealing, screed	Construction element	Included in calculations for substitution potential
external wall	load bearing and non-lead-bearing
(without cladding)	external wall, exterior pillars,
	external wall covering inside
internal wall	load bearing and non-lead-bearing
	internal wall, interior pillars,
	interior wall coverings
ceiling	ceiling, screed
roof	roof construction
balcony	balcony, loggia
flooring	floor covering, screed	Finishing elements	Same for “timber buildings and “mineral buildings” – no influence on substitution potential
stairs	stairs
windows	windows, skylight
doors	doors (indoor),
	glazed door
facade cladding	facade cladding
roofing	roofing
others	for example, sunblind
Technical building equipment:
heating	heating, pipework, space	Finishing elements	Same for “timber buildings and “mineral buildings” – no influence on substitution potential
	heating, etc.
ventilation	ventilation system, cooling
	devices, etc.
sanitary	drains, pipework, sanitary
	facilities, etc.
electro	switchboard, multiplier,
	telecommunication etc.
elevator	passenger elevator, freight elevator

2.2 Selection of the analysed buildings

The conducted comparative LCA study is based on planned and realized buildings as well as model-generated building counterparts. The analysed buildings for this research are.

office and administration building (OB)
agricultural buildings (ST)
non-agricultural buildings (HA) and
other non-residential buildings (YC, UAS).

Overall, 48 buildings were assessed and included in the comparison. Whereas, agricultural buildings (ST) are a unique feature from other building typologies and are generally not directly comparable. The construction of an agricultural building is highly dependent on the end-use, including livestock type, management, and use, and therefore varies conditionally in building codes. The agricultural buildings (STs) studied were designed, constructed, or modelled between 2012 and 2018 and vary in size with one story and gross floor area ranging from 906 to 2555 square meter. Table 2 shows information on the area, number of floors and year of construction for each building studied.

Table 2

Analysed buildings: “Original” timber buildings and mineral counterparts. Buildings OB for office and administrative buildings, ST for agricultural buildings, HA for non-agricultural buildings, UAS and YC for other non-residential buildings. ETICS = External Thermal Insulation Composite System

	Number	Name	Year of construction	Construction + Insulation	GEA [m²]	floors
office and administration building	OB_1_H	Original	2016	Timber-construction (CLT + cellulose)	1518	3
	OB_1_M1	Counterpart		Reinforced concrete + ETICS
	OB_1_M2	Counterpart		Perforated brick + ETICS
	OB_1_M3	Counterpart		Sand-lime brick + ETICS
	OB_2_H	Original	2011	Timber construction (Timber frame + mineral wool)	594	2
	OB_2_M1	Counterpart		Porous concrete + ETICS
	OB_2_M2	Counterpart		Reinforced concrete + ETICS
	OB_3_H	Original	2012	Timber-construction (CLT)	967	2
	OB_3_M1	Counterpart		Porous concrete + ETICS
	OB_3_M2	Counterpart		Perforated brick (insulated)
	OB_4_H	Original	2015	Timber-construction	292	2
	OB_4_M1	Counterpart		Reinforced concrete + ETICS
	OB_4_M2	Counterpart		Perforated brick + ETICS
	OB_5_H	Original	2007	Timber-construction	5103	4
	OB_5_M1	Counterpart		Sand-lime brick + ETICS
	OB_5_M2	Counterpart		Reinforced concrete + ETICS
	OB_6_H	Original	2008	Timber-construction	3621	3
	OB_6_M1	Counterpart		Reinforced concrete + ETICS
	OB_6_M2	Counterpart		Porous concrete *1
	OB_7_H	Original	2008	Timber-construction	5445	4
	OB_7_M1	Counterpart		Reinforced concrete + ETICS
	OB_7_M2	Counterpart		Perforated brick + ETICS
	OB_10_H	Original	2008	Timber-construction (Timber frame + mineral wool)	4835	2
	OB_10_M1	Counterpart	2008	Reinforced concrete + ETICS	4835	2
	OB_11_H	Original	-	Timber construction	2604	2
	OB_11_M1	Counterpart	-	Perforated brick + ETICS	2604	2
agricultural buildings (ST)	ST_2	Original	2018	Hybrid (Steel & Timber)	975	1
	ST_2_M1	Counterpart	2018	Steel construction	975	1
	ST_3	Original	2010	Timber construction	735	1
	ST_3_M1	Counterpart	2010	Steel construction	735	1
	ST_5_H	Original	2012	Reinforced concrete construction	2556	1
	ST_5_M1	Counterpart	2012	Steel construction	2556	1
	ST_6_H	Original	2017	Reinforced concrete construction	1643	1
	ST_6_M1	Counterpart	2017	Steel construction	1643	1
non-agricultural buildings (HA)	HA_1_H	Original	2016	Hybrid (Reinforced concrete & Timber construction)	2606	1
	HA_1_M1	Counterpart	2016	Reinforced concrete construction	2606	1
	HA_2_H	Original	2010	Timber construction	1220	1
	HA_2_M1	Counterpart	2010	Steel construction	1220	1
	HA_3_H	Original	2013	Hybrid (Steel & Timber)	2091	2
	HA_3_M1	Counterpart	2013	Reinforced concrete construction	2091	2
	HA_5_H	Original	2015	Timber construction	5247	2
	HA_5_M1	Counterpart	2015	Sand-lime brick	5247	2
other non- residential buildings (YC, UAS)	UAS_2	Original	2016	Timber construction	16,122	3
	UAS_2_M1	Counterpart	2016	Reinforced concrete construction	16,122	3
	UAS_3	Original	2009	Timber construction	1474	3
	UAS_3_M1	Pendant	2009	Reinforced concrete construction	1474	3
	YC_1_H	Original	2010	Timber construction	642	2
	YC_1_M1	Counterpart	2010	Sand-lime brick	642	2

All studied buildings are representative for the market and accord with the common construction technique for timber buildings (CLT and timber frame) and mineral buildings (brick, sand-lime brick, porous concrete, reinforced concrete or steel).

Functional equivalence is achieved by meeting the same technical and functional requirements and ensures the comparability of building life cycle assessments. Table 3 describes the type of building data used in this study. The building data of the “original” buildings originate from architecture and planning offices and are representing in most cases built examples.

Table 3

Modified and adapted description of the underlying building data (cf. Hafner and Schäfer 2017)

Status	Construction	Description	Origin of data	Name	Number
planned	Timber (T)	Documentation about the building (floor plan, elevation, etc.) is available, however the building was not finally realized	Architecture and planning office	“Original”	Building Code_T
model	Timber (T)	Documentation about the building (floor plan, elevation, etc.) is available, however the building was not finally realized	Architecture and planning office	“Original”	Building Code_T
built	Timber (T)	Documentation about the building (floor plan, elevation, EnEV-certificate, etc.) is available, building was realized	Architecture and planning office	“Original”	Building Code_T
built	Mineral (M)	Documentation about the building (floor plan, elevation, EnEV-certificate, etc.) is available, building was realized	Architecture and planning office	“Counterpart“	Building Code_M
modelled	Mineral (M)	Building was modelled on the basis of the documentation of the “original” buildings	–	“Counterpart“	Building Code_M

For each “original” timber building, at least one functionally equivalent counterpart was modelled for mineral construction materials, so that there are one to four mineral counterparts for each timber building. The timber buildings and their respective counterparts have identical energy properties, heat transmission coefficients for construction components, facade surfaces, gross external area, durability, functional performance (fire protection, sound insulation, etc.) and correspond to the current state of the art. Thus, the building models are identical, only the material concepts were changed. Furthermore, when creating the counterparts, a distinction was made between construction and finishing materials: the construction elements were replaced by mineral materials, the components of the finishing elements correspond to those of the “original” buildings. The finishing elements are not further considered in this study or included in the calculations of the substitution potential. The classification of construction elements and finishing elements is shown in Table 1.

2.3 Substitution potential on the building level

Substitution on the building level is equated to the GHG displacement factor of wood product substitution as defined by Sathre and O’Connor (2010). Substitution calculations on the building level were adapted from Hafner and Schäfer (2017) and transferred to the non-residential building sector.

Substitution on the building level is defined as the difference in greenhouse gas emissions that would result if, instead of a mineral building, a functionally equivalent timber building was built. Substitution at the building level thus describes the replacement of an entire building with a functionally equivalent building. The substitution is considered modularly over the building life cycle (modules A, B and C) of the building and is expressed through substitution potential SF_G:

$${SF}_{G}=\frac{{GHG}_{buildin{g}_{minerals}}- {GHG}_{building\_timber}}{\left|{GHG}_{building\_minerals}\right|} \left[\frac{kg CO2eq.}{kg CO2 eq.}\right]$$

(1)

with:

GHG_{building_mineral}: GHG emissions of the building to be replaced (mineral building) [kg CO2 eq.]

GHG_{building_timber}: GHG emissions of the building which replaces the substituted building (timber building) [kg CO2 eq.]

A positive result means that GHG emissions can be reduced by replacing a mineral building with a timber building. Conversely, a negative factor means that more emissions can be produced. The higher the factor (positive or negative), the more emissions can be avoided or produced.

3 Results

Key data of the analysed buildings relevant for the interpretation of the results are compiled in Table 2.

3.1 LCA results on the building level

LCA results are exemplarily shown for the GWP indicator per functional unit of one m² GEA for an office and administration building (OB). They are transferable to the other studied building types. The results are presented in modules A, B, C, and D, although module D is included only as information module and is not further analysed. The results are presented only for primary building elements, This also means substitution potential is also shown only for construction material. Substitution potential of finishing elements still needs further research bearing in mind that finishing elements can be included not only in timber buildings.

3.1.1 Office and administration building (OB)

Figure 1 shows the LCA results in GWP per m² GEA for the “original” timber construction of an office and administration building and three mineral counterparts. The total GWP is the sum of fossil and biogenic GWP. According to EN 16485:2014 (EN 2014a), the biogenic GWP has a negative value because carbon is temporarily stored by the material properties of wooden products. This material property applies to all renewable materials and means that all renewable material masses installed in the building function as temporary carbon repositories. This leads to the conclusion that the more renewable raw materials are used in a building, the higher the carbon storage is. Due to higher wood mass in the timber building, higher biogenic GHG emissions occur than in the mineral buildings, shown as negative values in module A. It can be seen that the mineral counterparts of the building also have carbon storage, although it is not significant. The occurrence of biogenic carbon in the mineral counterparts is due to the use of wood in the internal wall elements (see Fig. 1). In addition to biogenic GHG emissions, fossil GHG emissions occur during the production phase of building products, for example due to energy supply, transport to the manufacturing site, etc. The biogenic (negative) GWP partially offsets the fossil GHG emissions. As seen in Fig. 1 module C, the same amount of biogenic carbon as in module A leaves the product system, but with a positive value in module C. It becomes clear that the biogenic carbon is balanced over the entire life cycle of a building. This corresponds to EN 16485:2014 (EN 2014a), which defines renewable raw materials as carbon neutral over its entire life cycle. Results for the entire life cycle for the GWP indicator are obtained by adding the results of modules A, B and C. The total results demonstrate that the timber building has a lower GWP than the mineral variants.

The impact of each individual construction element considered in this calculation (see Table 1) is shown exemplarily for the “original” and counterpart in Fig. 2 for building OB_1. The construction components, which were built from mineral building materials in the “original” building, have been retained in the counterpart. Therefore, the impact of the foundation and balcony construction elements is the same. The differences between the ceiling component in the “original” and the counterparts are due to sound insulation performance. Since mineral building materials have a much higher density compared to wooden materials, ceiling constructions made of mineral building materials can be built with less material, while the timber construction has to be much thicker to achieve the same sound insulation level. Compared to the counterparts, the roofing construction component of the “original” building has a smaller impact. This can be explained by the timber material, which has a lower emission impact than mineral materials. It can clearly be seen that the external wall component has the greatest impact on GWP than any other construction component in the building. The external wall components largely cover the load-bearing structure of a building, therefore the mass of replaced timber material is higher. Only differences between the construction components of the “original” building and the construction components of the mineral counterparts have an impact on the substitution potential. This also means that the foundation and the balcony have no effect on the substitution potential.

3.1.2 Non-agricultural buildings

Figure 3 illustrates the LCA results shown in 3.1.1., for an “original” hybrid construction of a non-agricultural building and one mineral counterpart, which is a reinforced concrete construction type. The load-bearing construction elements of HA_1_H consist mostly of timber elements and to a lesser extent of mineral elements. The biogenic carbon, which acts as a temporary carbon store in module A, is visually identifiable by the negative value. Due to higher wood mass in the hybrid building, higher biogenic (negative) GHG emissions occur in module A than in the mineral building, although the counterpart also has a carbon storage, as in module A. The biogenic (negative) GWP partially offsets the fossil GHG emissions. As seen in Fig. 3 module C, the same amount of biogenic carbon as in module A leaves the product system, but with a positive value in module C. The overall result shows that the hybrid building has a lower GWP than the exclusively mineral variant.

3.2 Substitution potential results

Following Eq. 1, substitution potentials are calculated in two steps.

In the first step, we calculated the difference in GHG emissions between mineral and timber buildings in module A + C. In the second step, the resulting difference is divided by the GHG emissions of the mineral building. The higher the GHG difference or substitution potential, the greater the GHG reductions which can be achieved if the timber variant is built instead of the mineral counterpart. What also becomes clear is that the GHG reduction potential or substitution potential decreases the more similar the materials of the building pairs (“original” / counterpart) are. Furthermore, the durability of the construction components has a major impact on emissions, as elements such as external walls extend beyond the product life cycle. Thus, no replacement of the construction components takes place and module B remains unaffected.

Figure 4 shows the GHG differences of the LCA results of mineral buildings compared to timber buildings for module A + C (for office and administration buildings). From this result, substitution potentials at the building level were derived, as shown in Fig. 5, and for the other groups of non-residential buildings in Figs. 6, 7 and 8. The higher the GHG difference or the substitution potential, the more GHG savings can be achieved if the timber variant is used instead of the mineral counterpart.

Building design is influenced by various factors, for example, by the development plan, the wishes of the client, the spatial conditions, etc. These factors lead to a multitude of possibilities for construction variants. Due to the high variances, the results of the analysed buildings are distributed along a value corridor, which is limited by the minimum and maximum substitution potential.

3.2.1 Office and administration building

The GHG differences of the analysed office and administration buildings are shown in Fig. 4 and vary between 17 and 177 kg CO₂ eq./GEA, demonstrating that all analysed timber buildings emit less CO₂ than their mineral counterparts for modules A + C. The substitution potential range is between 0.06 and 0.48 (see Fig. 5), which indicates that, on the building level, there is a GHG reduction potential of 6–48% if timber is used in the building construction instead of mineral materials. The range results from the different construction type’s size, materials used in the construction of the buildings and their individual design. The analysed multi-story buildings have different building designs: two to four floors with internal or external staircases, access balconies, small single offices or open office areas and different shares of window and/or wall surfaces.

The timber content in the construction elements of the “original” building OB_5 is low, leading to overall lower substitution potential. Thus, lowest substitution potential is calculated in the building counterparts OB_5_M1, which results from replacing the external wall insulation and roof components, while maintaining the building’s supporting structure. In comparison to the substitution potential seen in Fig. 5, the building OB_10 in the reinforced concrete construction counterpart variant has the highest substitution potential. This value can be explained by considering the building components (see Table 3). All structural components in the “original” timber design (external wall, internal wall, ceiling, roof and balcony) are replaced by mineral alternatives and the existing large proportion of wood is thus minimized.

3.2.2 Agricultural buildings (ST)

The GHG differences of the analysed agricultural buildings are between 10 and 70 kg CO₂ eq./GEA, backing the evidence that all analysed timber buildings emit less CO₂ than their mineral counterparts for module A + C. The substitution potential of the investigated agricultural buildings is within a value corridor of 0.05 and 0.37 (cf. Figure 6); for module A + C, there is a GHG savings potential of between 5% and 37% for the buildings investigated. The variance is mainly due to the construction types and materials of the buildings and the regulations observed. The lowest substitution potential can be found in the design variant ST_2_M1 (cf. Figure 6); this can be explained by the overall low proportion of timber in the original construction. The highest value in the building ST_3_M1 is calculated by a total replacement of the timber components.

3.2.3 Non-agricultural buildings (HA)

The GHG differences of the analysed non-agricultural buildings are between 10 and 170 kg CO₂ eq./GEA. The substitution potential of the non-agricultural buildings range within a value corridor of 0.14 and 0.44 (Fig. 7) for module A + C.This means there is a GHG savings potential between 14% and 44% for the examined buildings. The variance is mainly due to the construction types and materials of the buildings and their individual design. Influences on design potential include the existing floor plan, the location of the building, specifications of the development plan, wishes of the building owner or architect, etc.

The building HA_2 is built in hybrid skeleton construction, therefore material consumption is lower compared to the other analysed buildings. The material consumption in HA_2 also results in a lower percentage of replaceable building components, which translates into a low GHG savings potential. The highest substitution potential is calculated for building HA_5, where the share of timber is the highest compared to the other analysed buildings. In this building, the original external wall timber with cellulose insulation is replaced by sand-lime brick and ETICS. The wood content in the timber construction already results in a GHG savings potential, which is increased by the cellulose insulation.

3.2.4 Other non-residential buildings (YC, UAS)

The GHG differences of the other non-residential buildings investigated range within a value corridor of 37 and 133 for module A + C. The substitution potential, shown in Fig. 8, indicates a GHG savings potential between 13% and 46% for the investigated buildings.

The lowest GHG reduction potential of 13% is identified in the building UAS_3_M1. The “original” construction elements of the building, such as the external wall, internal wall and ceiling construction, consist of timber and mineral elements, which leads to a lower replacement potential. The highest GHG reduction potential of 46% was identified for building UAS_2_M1, where the external wall and ceiling construction were replaced with mineral building elements.

4 Discussion

Following the current LCA standards (EN 2012, 2014b), the investigated building constructions of all building types achieve positive substitution potential. The analysis considered construction elements such as foundation, external wall, internal wall, ceiling, roof and balcony. The classification of a building into the relevant building type - timber or mineral - was based on the load-bearing structure. Further elements are the finishing components, which include doors, windows, stairs, flooring, roofing, facade and the technical equipment of the building. The finishing components were, however, not included in the present calculations due to the influence based on subjective preferences, and because the data availability and quality are yet not sufficiently reliable to map the market situation. Further research is required on that issue.

The substitution potential of the studied non-residential buildings varies for:

office and administrative buildings between 0.06 and 0.48;
agricultural buildings between 0.05 and 0.37;
non-agricultural buildings between 0.14 and 0.44;
other non-residential buildings between 0.13 and 0.46.

Thus, the GHG reduction potential of the studied buildings ranges from 5 to 48%. The lowest substitution potential has been identified for agricultural buildings and the highest for office and administration buildings. The used building materials, the building construction, the building geometry and the building design all affect the substitution potential.

The calculated substitution potential or GHG reduction potential is divided into building use categories in non-residential building construction; a comparison between building use categories is currently not possible as it would require further research and analysis.

The substitution potential correlates with the GHG reduction potential, that is, the higher the substitution potential by replacing a mineral construction with a timber construction, the greater the GHG reduction potential. The material differences between the “original” timber building and the mineral counterparts have great effect on substitution potential. Thus, comparing an “original” timber building, which has a high proportion of mineral elements, and a mineral counterpart, which has both mineral and wooden elements, results in a low substitution potential. Thus, the greater the proportion of wood elements in a wooden building compared to its mineral counterpart with a low wood content, the higher the substitution potential will be.

Wooden-building elements not only have positive effects on the substitution potential but can also temporarily store carbon over the building life cycle due to the natural material properties as also shown in, for example, Amiri et al. (2020). The carbon storage is presented as a negative biogenic GWP in module A (Fig. 1), leaves the system in module C and therefore is not included in the substitution potential. A significant influence on the carbon storage is based on wooden elements used in structural components (Amiri et al. 2020). The longer a wood product is in use as a building material, the longer the carbon storage effect is maintained on the building level (Kuittinen et al. 2021).

Since the substitution potential is calculated according to the type of construction of the counterpart, it is not possible to specify the substitution potential in one indicator value. Thus, the resulting substitution potentials are presented in a range between the minimum and maximum values, as shown in Hafner and Schäfer (2017) and Hafner et al. (2017). To calculate a representative substitution potential, statistical data (Destatis 2017) providing information on building type, construction method and building materials must be taken into account and analysed. Following data analysis, a weighted factor must be determined for each mineral construction type. Thereafter, the influence of the substitution potential on the overall construction activity can be calculated, as described in Hafner and Schäfer (2017).

Comparing the present results to recent literature on the same topic (e.g., D´Amico et al. 2020; Humekoski et al. 2021), it becomes obvious that in the literature often a mix of a general substitution factor for the whole material use of wood combined with scenarios (e.g. upscaling to future scenarios) is done. Following the criticism of overestimating the substitution factor (Hammon 2019), realistic substitution potential should follow clear and transparent rules, rely on actual product specific data, and the replacement of building products must be shown clearly (Hammon 2019). All these specifications are fulfilled in the present calculations with a transparent presentation of numerous realised buildings and the use of actual environmental product declarations, for example for timber products in Germany. Howard et al. (2021) emphasises that more sophisticated data is needed for the building sector. The present results can satisfy this need as it shows substitution benefits for various building categories. Additionally, the results are based on a large range of calculated buildings and not only by single building comparison (Geng et al.,2019; Himes and Busby 2020). What the present data does not integrate is the changes of future energy-mix or the increasing share of recycling in the future (Brunet-Navarro et al. 2021), which will certainly lower the substitution potential until the 21 century. However, for achieving realistic GHG emission reductions in the short term, the presented substitution potential is reliable.

The results reveal two major influences. Timber buildings indicate lower GHG-emissions over the entire life cycle than mineral materials for the functional unit of m² GEA. Additionally biogenic carbon is sequestered in buildings – shown in LCA results as negative biogenic GWP.

There is a need, however, to differentiate between (a) substitution potential and the captured and stored carbon on the building level as is demonstrated in this paper and (b) the calculation of carbon pools on national scale by using harvested wood products in buildings (IPCC 2006). On a national scale, the carbon stock level cannot be solely estimated from the quantity of carbon uptake. To estimate the carbon stock magnitude of selected pools, inventory as well as flux data methods need to be applied. The latter are based on information on the magnitude of carbon inflow to a pool as well as its carbon outflows (Rüter 2017). To assess the GHG impact of deviating development pathways, the accounting must be checked against a reference case, as shown in Rüter (2017) and Hafner and Rüter (2018).

Looking to future research, the next step would be to scale the results to a national level and to link them to the national calculation of GHG emissions. Hafner and Rüter (2018) demonstrated how integrating data from buildings’ LCA with calculations on national scale could be employed to predict the GHG reduction potential for the national construction sector. The data derived in the present research allow these calculations to be broadened. Presently, only 17% of non-residential buildings in Germany are built using timber construction (Purkus et al. 2019).

5 Conclusion

This study presents transparent and scientifically validated LCA results and substitution potentials on the building level for various groups of non-residential buildings.

Further GHG reduction potential could be mobilized if, alongside construction elements, finishing elements such as doors, windows, flooring, outer cladding were also accounted for. The potential of finishing elements for GHG reduction should not be underestimated, since timber finishing products can be installed in every building, independent of the building’s construction.

In general, the results reveal two major influences. Timber buildings indicate lower GHG-emissions over the entire life cycle than mineral materials for the functional unit of m² GEA. Secondly, biogenic carbon is sequestered in buildings – shown in LCA results as negative biogenic GWP. The carbon sequestration effect of timber buildings has recently gained more attention, for example, in the context of the European Green Deal.

The present calculations of substitution potential show that a shift to increasing the rate of timber buildings on national level could create a significant potential for future GHG reductions. Thus, the more detailed data we have on the calculated substitution potential of really built buildings that are connected to the input on the national level, the more valid data can be modelled to precisely calculate the input of material choice for a national GHG balance sheet.

Acknowledgements

The research project “Database for the evaluation of the sustainable and efficient use of timber in the German construction sector (HolzImBauDat)” was funded by the Agency for Renewable Resources (FNR) with a research grant of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Grant number: 22028516). The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of all concerned.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Vorheriger Artikel Influence mechanism of tool cutting geometry on chip formation in experimentally simulating wood sanding

Nächster Artikel Digitalization of small and medium sized sawmills in Austria: a survey about business processes

Amiri A, Ottelin J, Sorvari J, Junnila S (2020) Cities as carbon sinks—classification of wooden buildings. Environ Res Lett 15(9):94076. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba134CrossRef

Ascona (2018) Ascona GbR LEGEP Software Version 2.9.686 (10.08.2018); Stand Datenbank 01.11.2018, München

BBSR (2015) Assessment System for Sustainable Building (BNB) - BNB system variant Office Buildings. Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development

BBSR (2017) Nutzungsdauern von Bauteilen für Lebenszyklusanalysen nach Bewertungssystem Nachhaltiges Bauen (BNB). Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (Service life of building elements)

BBSR (2018) Oekobau.Dat Database, Version 2017-I. Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development

Brunet-Navarro P, Jochheim H, Cardellini G, Richter K (2021) Muys B (2021) Climate mitigation by energy and material substitution of wood products has an expiry date. J Clean Prod 303

Buyle M, Braet J, Audenaert A (2013) Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 26:379–388. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.001CrossRef

Cabeza LF, Rincón L, Vilariño V, Pérez G, Castell A (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 29:394–416. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037CrossRef

Churkina G, Organschi A, Reyer CPO, Ruff A, Vinke K, Liu Z, Reck BK, Graedel TE, Schellnhuber HJ (2020) Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nat Sustain 3(4):269–276. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4CrossRef

D´Amico B, Pomponi F, Hart J (2020) Global potential for material substitution in building construction: the case of cross laminated timber. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123487CrossRef

Destatis (2017) Bautätigkeit und Wohnungen. Bautätigkeit. Fachserie 5 Reihe 1. Statistisches Bundesamt. (Building activity and housing by the Federal Statistical Office)

DGNB (2015) Ökobilanz Steckbrief DGNB ENV 1.1 S.12. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen e.V., Stuttgart (German sustainability certification system, criterion lifecycle assessment)

Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2012) Lifecycle primary energy analysis of conventional and passive houses. Int J Sustainable Building Technol Urban Dev 3(2):105–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2012.696320CrossRef

Eberhardt LCM, Birgisdóttir H, Birkved M (2019) Life cycle assessment of a Danish office building designed for disassembly. Building Res Inform 47(6):666–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1517458CrossRef

EC (2014) Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee on the regions on resource efficiency opportunities in the building sector, COM_2014_497. COM_2014_0445_FIN, European Commission

Emami N, Heinonen J, Marteinsson B, Säynäjoki A, Junnonen J-M, Laine J, Junnila S (2019) A Life Cycle Assessment of Two Residential Buildings Using Two Different LCA Database-Software Combinations: Recognizing Uniformities and Inconsistencies. Buildings 9(1):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings9010020CrossRef

EN (2012) EN 15978:2011 (D) - Sustainability of construction works – Assessment of environmental performance of buildings – Calculation method; German version EN 15978:2011. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN), Berlin

EN (2014a) Round and sawn timber - Environmental product declarations - Product category rules for wood and wood-based products for use in construction; German version EN 16485:2014. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN), Berlin

EN (2014b) Sustainability of construction works – Environmental product declarations – Core rules for the product category of construction products; German version EN 15804:2012 + A1:2013. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN), Berlin

ISO (2009) EN ISO 14040:2009 - Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN), Berlin

ISO (2018) Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006 + Amd 1:2017); German version EN ISO 14044:2006 + A1:2018. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (DIN), Berlin

Frischknecht R, Balouktsi M, Lützkendorf T, Aumann A, Birgisdottir H, Ruse EG, Hollberg A, Kuittinen M, Lavagna M, Lupišek A, Passer A, Peuportier B, Ramseier L, Röck M, Trigaux D, Vancso D (2019) Environmental benchmarks for buildings: needs, challenges and solutions—71st LCA forum, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, 18 June 2019. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24(12):2272–2280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01690-yCrossRef

Geng A, Chen J (2019) Assessing the greenhouse gas mitigation potential of harvested wood products substitution in China. Environ Sci Technol 53:1732–1740. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06510CrossRefPubMed

Hafner A, Rüter S (2018) Method for assessing the national implications of environmental impacts from timber buildings-an exemplary study for residential buildings in Germany. Wood Fiber Sci 50(Special):139–154. https://doi.org/10.22382/wfs-2018-047CrossRef

Hafner A, Rüter S, Ebert S, Schäfer S, König H, Cristofaro L, Diederichs S, Kleinherz M, Krechel M (2017) Greenhouse gas balances for timber buildings - Implementation of new requirements for life-cycle-assessments and calculation of empiric substitution factors (GHG - timber buildings). BMEL/BMUB

Hafner A, Schäfer S (2017) Comparative LCA study of different timber and mineral buildings and calculation method for substitution factors on building level. J Clean Prod 167:630–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.203CrossRef

Hafner A, Schäfer S (2018) Environmental aspects of material efficiency versus carbon storage in timber buildings. Eur J Wood Prod 76(3):1045–1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-017-1273-9CrossRef

Hammon M(2019) Have product substitution carbon benefits been overestimated? A sensitivity analysis of key assumptions. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 (2019) 065008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab1e95

Heeren N, Mutel CL, Steubing B, Ostermeyer Y, Wallbaum H, Hellweg S (2015) Environmental Impact of Buildings–What Matters? Environ Sci Technol 49(16):9832–9841. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01735CrossRefPubMed

Himes A, Busby G(2020) Wood buildings as a climate solution. Developments in the Built Environment 4 (2020) 100030. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100030

Howard C, Dymond C-C, Griess V, Tolkien-Spurr D, Kooten G-C(2021) Wood product carbon substitution benefits: a critical review of assumptions. Carbon Balance Manage (2021) 16:9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-021-00171-w

Hurmekoski E, Smyth C, Stern T, Verkerk P-J, Asada R(2021) Substitution impacts of wood use at the market level: a systematic review. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (2021) 123004. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac386f

IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Glossary. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hayama, Japan

Kalt G (2018) Carbon dynamics and GHG implications of increasing wood construction: long-term scenarios for residential buildings in Austria. Carbon Manag 9(3):265–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2018.1469948CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

König H(2016) Carbon storage and CO2 substitution in new buildings. In: Sustainable Built Environment Conference 2016 in Hamburg: Strategies, Stakeholders, Success factors, 7th – 11th March 2016 ; Conference Proceedings. Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe Institute Of Technology (KIT), ZEBAU-Centre For Energy, Construction, pp 200–2009

Kuittinen M, Zernicke C, Slabik S, Hafner A (2021) How can carbon be stored in the built environment? A review of potential options. Architectural Sci Rev 1–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2021.1896471

Purkus A, Lüdtke J, Becher G, Dieter M, Jochem D, Lehnen R, Liesebach M, Polley H, Rüter S, Schweinle J, Weimar H, Welling J(2019) Evaluation der Charta für Holz 2.0. Methodische Grundlagen und Evaluationskonzept. Thünen-Report, vol 68. Johann-Heinrich-von-Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig (Evaluation of Charta for wood 2.0. Methodical principals and evaluation concept)

Rüter S(2017) The Contribution of the Material Wood Use to Climate Protection - the WoodCarbonMonitor Model, Phd Thesis. Technische Universität München, München

Rüter S, Werner F, Forsell N, Prins C, Vial E, Levet A-L (2016) ClimWood2030 - climate benefits of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products. Perspective 2030: final report. Thünen Report, vol 42. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig

Sathre R, O’Connor J (2010) Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environ Sci Policy 13(2):104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.005CrossRef

Takano A, Hughes M, Winter S (2014) A multidisciplinary approach to sustainable building material selection: A case study in a Finnish context. Build Environ 82:526–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.09.026CrossRef

UBA (ed) (2020) Berichterstattung unter der Klimarahmenkonvention der Vereinten Nationen und dem Kyoto-Protokoll 2020. Nationaler Inventarbericht zum Deutschen Treibhausgasinventar 1990–2018. Umweltbundesamt – UNFCCC-Submission. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau (Submission under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol 2020. National Inventory Report for the German Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2018. German Environment Agency, Dessau)

UN (2015) Paris Agreement to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dec. 12, 2015. United Nations, Paris

Vares S, Häkkinen T, Vainio T (2017) Rakentamisen hiilivarasto [Carbon storage of construction]. VTT Asiakasraportti;, No. VTT-CR-04958-17. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

Weißenberger M, Jensch W, Lang W (2014) The convergence of life cycle assessment and nearly zero-energy buildings: The case of Germany. Energy Build 76:551–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.03.028CrossRef

Titel: Comparative LCA study of wood and mineral non-residential buildings in Germany and related substitution potential
verfasst von: Annette Hafner
Özlem Özdemir
Publikationsdatum: 30.09.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Wood and Wood Products / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0018-3768
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-736X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-022-01888-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Publisher’s Note

1 Introduction

2 Method

2.1 Functional unit of buildings

2.2 Selection of the analysed buildings

2.3 Substitution potential on the building level

3 Results

3.1 LCA results on the building level

3.1.1 Office and administration building (OB)

3.1.2 Non-agricultural buildings

3.2 Substitution potential results

3.2.1 Office and administration building

3.2.2 Agricultural buildings (ST)

3.2.3 Non-agricultural buildings (HA)

3.2.4 Other non-residential buildings (YC, UAS)

4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Publisher’s Note

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

Vacuum infusion as a novel method to determine wood permeability

Digitalization of small and medium sized sawmills in Austria: a survey about business processes

Preliminary evaluation of polydimethylsiloxane and hydrophobic silica nanoparticles to improve water repellency and boron leachability in wood

Strain and cracks investigations on tropical green wood slices under natural drying: experimental and numerical approaches

Wettability and surface interactions of natural and thermally modified beech wood with water and water-based coatings: the effect of surface pre-treatment type

Analysis of the interaction between internal porosity and oriented strand board performance using X-ray computed tomography