Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLu, Hangyong Ray
dc.contributor.authorEl Hanandeh, Ali
dc.contributor.authorGilbert, Benoit P
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-27T12:00:42Z
dc.date.available2017-11-27T12:00:42Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn0959-6526
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.065
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/352395
dc.description.abstractThe building construction sector contributes to a quarter of the total Australian Greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are mainly attributed to the use of energy intensive materials. To achieve better environmental benefits and cost saving, the utilisation of wood-based construction materials is currently attracting attention. However, the manufacturing of engineered wood products consumes large quantities of chemicals and energy, which may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, a life cycle study was conducted to compare various materials for constructing the structural frame of a 4-storey apartment building compliant with the Australian building codes. Five alternatives were assessed: Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) manufactured from early to mid-rotation hardwood plantation logs (LVLm), LVL manufactured from mature hardwood plantations (LVLh), LVL manufactured from mature softwood plantations (LVLs), concrete and steel. The functional unit was defined as the whole building structural frame. Global Warming Potential (GWP), Acidification, Eutrophication, Fossil Depletion, Human-toxicity Potential (HTP) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) were evaluated. The LVL generally performed better than concrete and steel structural products. Particularly, LVLm had the lowest GWP (2.84E4±233 kg-CO2-eq) and LCC ($128,855 ± 2797), which were less than a quarter of the concrete option. However, the usage of chemical preservatives and phenol-formaldehyde adhesive during the LVL production and treatment caused the HTP impact to be higher than the steel option. Monte Carlo Analysis showed that while the LVL options presented a higher sensitivity to the combined uncertainties, the overall ranking of the five options remained the same. Therefore, the inclusion of wood-based material in structural elements may significantly contribute to reduce the environmental impacts and the LCC of the construction sector.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom458
dc.relation.ispartofpageto473
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJournal of Cleaner Production
dc.relation.ispartofvolume166
dc.subject.fieldofresearchConstruction materials
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmental engineering
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEnvironmentally sustainable engineering
dc.subject.fieldofresearchGlobal and planetary environmental engineering
dc.subject.fieldofresearchManufacturing engineering
dc.subject.fieldofresearchOther engineering
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBuilt environment and design
dc.subject.fieldofresearchEngineering
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode400505
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4011
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode401102
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode401103
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4014
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4099
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode33
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode40
dc.titleA comparative life cycle study of alternative materials for Australian multi-storey apartment building frame constructions: Environmental and economic perspective
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.facultyGriffith Sciences, Griffith School of Engineering
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorGilbert, Benoit
gro.griffith.authorEl Hanandeh, Ali


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record