Sustainable construction: potential carbon emission reductions (PCER) in Australian construction systems through the use of bioclimatic design principles

2017

The building sector is responsible for 40 per cent of global energy use. By 2030, a total of 60 Mt of carbon-reduction opportunities will be available in the Australian building sector. The reduction of carbon emissions from Australian buildings is thus a priority for the Federal Government, and thus the Australian government recently announced plans to cut emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 (Hasham, Bourke & Cox 2015). This study focuses on the amount of energy consumed during building construction processes, and the degree to which carbon emissions can be reduced through the incorporation of bioclimatic design principles into these processes. These principles include the use of local facilities to reduce transportation, sustainable and efficient use of materials, replacement of Portland cement with geopolymer cement, and similar environmentally-friendly initiatives. Criteria for the research model proposed in this study have been developed through the application of bioclimati...

Sustainable Construction Potential Carbon Emission Reductions (PCER) in Australian Construction Systems through the Use of Bioclimatic Design Principles A thesis submitted by Sattar Sattary B.Sc. (Architectural Engineering) M.Sc. (Architectural Engineering) For the award of Doctor of Philosophy 2017 ABSTRACT The building sector is responsible for 40 per cent of global energy use. By 2030, a total of 60 Mt of carbon-reduction opportunities will be available in the Australian building sector. The reduction of carbon emissions from Australian buildings is thus a priority for the Federal Government, and thus the Australian government recently announced plans to cut emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 (Hasham, Bourke & Cox 2015). This study focuses on the amount of energy consumed during building construction processes, and the degree to which carbon emissions can be reduced through the incorporation of bioclimatic design principles into these processes. These principles include the use of local facilities to reduce transportation, sustainable and efficient use of materials, replacement of Portland cement with geopolymer cement, and similar environmentally-friendly initiatives. Criteria for the research model proposed in this study have been developed through the application of bioclimatic design principles to six case studies from Australia and the United Kingdom. This was done in order to measure the potential reductions in construction carbon emissions that might be achieved in the pre-construction and construction stages of the building life cycle. The outcomes of this research demonstrate that use of bioclimatic criteria can achieve reductions in carbon emissions from 48 to 65 per cent for whole building systems, and from 57 to 93 per cent when applied to building elements of general Australian construction systems. However, a more significant finding is that application of the research tool to elements of general Australian construction systems consistently achieved significantly higher reductions in carbon emissions than in current building practice, or through application of a currently-used green rating system (i.e. Green Star tool) to building elements. The future of the green construction industry should thus include consideration of bioclimatic design principles. ii CERTIFICATION OF THESIS This thesis is entirely the work of Sattar Sattary except where otherwise acknowledged. The work is original and has not previously been submitted for any other award, except where acknowledged. Student and supervisors signatures of endorsement are held at USQ. Sattar Sattary Principal Supervisor Associate Professor David Thorpe Associate Supervisor Doctor Ian Craig iii PREFACE I have worked in the building industry for more than two decades. When working in this field in Iran, I observed that materials that would construct one square metre of a building in Germany would produce two and a half square metres in Iran. However, whereas the average lifespan of a building in Tehran is 27.5 years, in the UK it is 102 years. Following these observations about the quantity of materials used, as well as the resulting quality of the buildings, I began studying in Australia and became involved in developing the Green Globe standards in Queensland. However, these standards can only be applied to a specific class of building. In 2002, the Green Building Council of Australia launched the Green Star rating system. I began work with them in 2006, and was assigned to apply this rating system to the Administration Office at the Kelvin Grove QUT campus. This was a pilot study, field testing the Education Tool of the Green Star system. However, ultimately this Education Tool could not be fully applied as the heating and cooling systems in this building were conjoined and not individual. I also found that the Green Star system could be applied to only 5 to 10 per cent of a given building under limited conditions, and that all the sustainability features achieved in this particular building could not be evaluated. Nevertheless, this pilot project was considered one of the most successful environmental assessments for buildings at that time. A second study in which I participated concerned the green infrastructure assessment tool of the Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC), now the Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA). I was involved in the initial trials of this tool, and in the evaluation and assessment of specific areas of sustainability. It was of interest to me that this tool could measure and provide for only a small sustainability credit in a given project, but nevertheless be of considerable importance to the construction industry. In fact, this was also the case for several other green infrastructure tools. The limitations of these green tools led me to reflect on what other considerations might be applied to the assessment of sustainability in the construction industry. An additional impetus to my interest and study in this area were the global summits and various emission reduction targets proposed by some developed countries. For iv example, the UK intends to reduce carbon emissions by 47 per cent, and Australia has set targets of 26 to 28 per cent over the next twenty years (Hasham, Bourke & Cox 2015). Such emission reduction targets are driven by findings such as that there are some 1.7 trillion tonnes of steel in the existing building infrastructure of the UK that in many cases is recyclable. Also, in the construction industry up to 90 per cent of construction carbon emissions can potentially be reduced (UK Indemand 2014). Other research done in the European Union also notes that humans consume 20 per cent more than nature can produce (Edwards 1999). The above considerations have driven me towards the development of generic sustainability assessment criteria, that can be applied to single cases or all areas of the construction industry and its activities. Such criteria can potentially assist Australia and other countries to meet the emission reduction targets set in the Paris Summit of 2015. The focus of this study is thus to develop criteria that can be applied towards reducing construction carbon emissions from any single building element system (floor, wall and/or roof) in an Australian construction system without having to consider building classes and typology. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, appreciation must go to my principal supervisor, Associate Professor David Thorpe, and my associate supervisor, Dr Ian Craig. Both are from the School of Engineering and Surveying at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ), and I thank them for their valuable support, insight, and great patience in working with me. For their professional advice and support, I would like to thank the following people: Professor John Cole, Executive Director, Institute for Resilient Regions, USQ; and Professor Richard Hyde, Professor of Architectural Science at the University of Sydney. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA); the Australian Institute of Architects (Queensland Chapter); and the Shahid Beheshti University and the Yazd University in Iran. Thank you to Mr. Nicholas Lambert as the external editor for this Thesis. For providing the data for the case studies within this research, I send my thanks and best wishes to Dr Bill Lawson, and Mr Simon Pearl, Associate Director, Planning, Projects and Space at USQ. I would also like to extend my thanks to the USQ library staff for their support during my research. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the consideration, love, advice, support and patience of my family: my wife Atousa, and my daughters Yasmine and Nassy. vi Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii CERTIFICATION OF THESIS iii PREFACE iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi TABLE OF CONTENTS vii LIST OF FIGURES xi LIST OF TABLES xii ABBREVIATIONS xv CHAPTER ONE THE NECESSITY TO REDUCE THE CARBON EMISSIONS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Overview Background to this research The research problem Scope and Limitation of this research Research aims Research questions Outline of the chapters in this thesis 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 CHAPTER TWO CONSTRUCTION, CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY 2.1 Overview 2.2 The Embodied Energy of Buildings and Sustainable Development 2.3 Reduction of the Construction Carbon Emissions of Buildings 2.3.1 A common carbon metric 2.3.2 The use of wood in building construction 2.3.3 Greenspec: A green building resource in the UK 2.4 Measuring the embodied energy values of building 2.4.1 Tools to measure embodied energy and construction carbon emissions 2.5 Bioclimatic Design Principles (BDP) 2.5.1 Background to Bioclimatic Design Principles 2.5.2 Current research on Bioclimatic Design Principles 2.6 Summary 7 7 11 11 12 12 13 14 16 17 17 19 CHAPTER THREE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS 3.1 Overview 3.2 Sustainability 3.2.1 Sustainable Development 3.2.2 Sustainable construction 3.3 Environmental impact of building 3.4 Key decisions and international reaction to environmental issues vii 20 20 21 22 23 27 Table of Contents World Commission on Environment and Development – 1987 28 The Earth Summit – 1992 and 2012 29 The Kyoto Protocol – 1997 30 The European Environment Agency (EEA) – 1994 31 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – 1988 32 United Nations Environment Program, Sustainable Building and Climate Initiative – 2009 33 3.4.7 The Paris Agreement – 2015 33 3.5 Summary 35 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.4.4 3.4.5 3.4.6 CHAPTER FOUR EMBODIED ENERGY AND REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS OF CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Overview 4.2 The Embodied Energy of building materials 4.2.1 Embodied energy and operational energy 4.2.2 Types of embodied energy and methods of calculation 4.2.3 Input-Output embodied energy and hybrid methods 4.2.4 Guidelines for reducing embodied energy and carbon emissions 4.3 Carbon emissions of the construction process 4.4 Converting embodied energy to carbon emissions (CO2) equivalent 4.5 Review of techniques to reduce construction carbon emissions 4.5.1 Recycling and reuse of construction materials 4.5.2 Reduced materials use in design 4.5.3 Use of appropriate construction materials 4.5.4 Reuse of building elements and building spaces 4.5.5 Recycling and reuse of steel from recycled content 4.5.6 Reuse of structural steel 4.5.7 Recycling and reuse of bricks 4.5.8 Use of fly ash in bricks and concrete 4.5.9 Use of recycled aggregates in concrete 4.5.10 Replacement of cement with geopolymers 4.5.11 Emissions reduction in transportation 4.5.12 Using sustainable types of transportation 4.6 Barriers to emission reduction in construction 4.7 Summary 36 36 37 38 43 45 47 48 50 50 52 52 54 56 57 59 60 61 64 67 67 68 70 CHAPTER FIVE INTRODUCTION TO BIOCLIMATIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES (BDP), GREEN TOOLS AND BIM 5.1 Overview 72 5.2 Using bioclimatic design principles in building design 72 5.3 Reduction of carbon emissions by application of bioclimatic design principles to the six case studies 74 5.4 Bioclimatic design principles in best practice and green tools 85 5.4.1 Current best practice in use of bioclimatic design principles 85 viii Table of Contents 5.4.2 Bioclimatic design principles and the LEED green building tool 87 5.4.3 Bioclimatic design principles and the BREEAM green building tool 89 5.4.4 Bioclimatic design principles and the Green Star green building tool 90 5.5 Measurable criteria based on BDPs to reduce construction carbon emissions 94 5.6 Bioclimatic principles considered in other research and under laboratory conditions 96 5.7 Limitations of green tool rating systems 100 5.8 Building Information Modelling (BIM) and green design 101 5.9 Summary 102 CHAPTER SIX RESEARCH METHOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN 6.1 Overview 6.2 Research type and the case study method 6.3 Research methodology 6.4 Sources of embodied energy and carbon emission data used in this research 6.5 Limitations of this study 6.6 Generalising the outcomes from this study 6.7 Summary 103 103 104 105 107 108 108 CHAPTER SEVEN RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF APPLYING THE RESEARCH MODEL TO CASE STUDIES & GENERAL AUSTRALIAN CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS 7.1 Overview 109 7.2 Selected case studies 110 7.2.1 Case study one – Friendly Beaches Lodge 112 7.2.2 Case Study Two – ACF Green Home 113 7.2.3 Case Study Three – Display Project Home 115 7.2.4 Case Study Four – Civil Engineering Laboratory, USQ 116 7.2.5 Case Study Five – London Olympic Velodrome Building 117 7.2.6 Case Study Six – Multi Sports Building, USQ 118 7.3 Case studies – Potential carbon emission reductions in floor, wall and roof construction systems 120 7.3.1 Case studies – Floor construction systems emissions reduction 121 7.3.2 Case studies – Wall construction systems emissions reduction 124 7.3.3 Case studies – Roof construction systems emissions reduction 126 7.3.4 Case studies – Whole construction systems emissions reduction 128 7.3.5 Analysis of data from the floor, wall, roof systems of the case studies 130 7.4 General Australian floor, wall and roof construction systems – potential carbon emission reductions 135 7.4.1 Potential emission reductions in general Australian floor construction systems 137 7.4.2 Potential emission reductions in general Australian wall construction systems 139 7.4.3 Potential emission reductions in general Australian roof construction systems 143 ix Table of Contents 7.4.4 Analysis of data from the general Australian floor, wall and roof systems 146 7.5 Summary 147 CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS BIOCLIMATIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES IN CONSTRUCTION 8.1 Overview 148 8.2 Significance of this study 148 8.3 Recommendations for the Australian construction sector based on this research 149 8.4 Recommendations for further research 150 8.5 Limitations of this research 151 8.6 Concluding Remarks 152 REFERENCES 155 PAPERS AND BOOK CHAPTERS FROM THIS RESEARCH 170 APPENDICES 172 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D 182 192 201 284 OTHER PAPERS 289 x List of Figures LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER FOUR Figure 4.1: London Olympics Stadium ...................................................................... 52 Figure 4.2: British Pavilion Seville Expo 93 ............................................................. 53 Figure 4.3: Upcycled-prefabricated concrete walls ................................................... 55 Figure 4.4: Reused prefabricated concrete walls ....................................................... 55 Figure 4.5: Current end-of-life outcomes for concrete, timber and steel ................... 56 Figure 4.6: Steel elements from demolition, Toowong, Australia ............................. 57 Figure 4.7: Materials from house demolition, Australia ............................................ 57 Figure 4.8: Floating shipping container apartments in Denmark............................... 57 Figure 4.9: Reuse strategy, End plate beam to column and beam-to-beam connections .................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 4.10: CO2 emissions of different brick types .................................................. 61 Figure 4.11: 10.8-metre geopolymer beam with vaulted soffit being craned into position. ...................................................................................................................... 64 CHAPTER SIX Figure 6.1: Life cycle model of building. Stages within this study (1-3) 107 CHAPTER SEVEN Figure 7.1: Friendly Beaches Lodge, Tasmania, Australia ...................................... 113 Figure 7.2: ACF Green Home, Roxburgh Park Victoria Australia .......................... 114 Figure 7.3: Display Project Home, Ginninderra, Australian Capital Territory........ 116 Figure 7.4: Civil Engineering Laboratory, Springfield Australia ............................ 117 Figure 7.5: Olympic Velodrome Building, London ................................................. 118 Figure 7.6: Multi Sports Building, Springfield, Australia ....................................... 119 Figure 7.7: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for the floor construction systems of the case studies (using data from Table 7.3). ......................................... 122 Figure 7.8: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for the wall construction systems of the case studies (using data from Table 7.6). ......................................... 125 Figure 7.9: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for the roof construction systems of the case studies (using data from Table 7.9). ......................................... 127 Figure 7.10: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for the whole construction systems of the case studies (using data from Table 7.13). ....................................... 129 Figure 7.11: Carbon emission reductions in the whole construction systems of the case studies achieved at Implementation, and then by application of the Green Star and research model tools .......................................................................................... 132 Figure 7.12: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for general Australian floor systems (using data from Table 7.17). ..................................................................... 138 Figure 7.13: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for general Australian wall construction systems (using data from Table 7.20). ................................................ 141 Figure 7.14: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for general Australian roof construction systems (using data from Table 7.23). ................................................ 145 xi List of Tables LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER THREE Table 3.1: Main notions within definitions of sustainable development………...….22 Table 3.2: Summary of environmental impacts of global construction………….….27 Table 3.3: Post-2020 emission reduction targets for major developed countries…...34 CHAPTER FOUR Table 4.1: Embodied energy and carbon emissions of common Australian building materials .....................................................................................................................39 Table 4.2: Embodied energy and carbon emissions of common UK building materials .....................................................................................................................40 Table 4.3: Embodied energy and carbon emissions of building materials derived from ‘raw material & virgin natural resources’ and ‘recycled materials and recycled content’. ...................................................................................................................... 41 Table 4.4: Embodied energy and carbon emissions in Australian Floor construction systems .......................................................................................................................42 Table 4.5: Embodied energy and carbon emissions in Australian Wall construction systems .......................................................................................................................42 Table 4.6: Embodied energy and carbon emissions in Australian Roof construction systems .......................................................................................................................42 Table 4.7: Comparison of PER and hybrid I-O methods for embodied energy and carbon emissions of common building materials .......................................................44 Table 4.8: Comparison of PER and hybrid I-O methods for some typical residential wall, floor and roof systems ......................................................................................45 Table 4.9: The carbon life cycle of a typical building................................................47 Table 4.10: The carbon intensity of electricity generation .........................................48 Table 4.11: Higher value materials typically recovered in house deconstruction ......51 Table 4.12: Barriers to reuse of structural steel..........................................................58 Table 4.13: Summary of recycled aggregate concrete codes in US, UK and Australia ....................................................................................................................................64 Table 4.14: Transportation energy consumption: United Kingdom and Canada .......68 Table 4.15: Barriers to emission reduction. ...............................................................70 CHAPTER FIVE Table 5.1: Building lifecycle stages…………………………………………………75 Table 5.2: Measurable indicators – potential carbon emission reduction in construction process…………………………………………………………………76 Table 5.3: Summary – reduced carbon emissions, standard/basic carbon emissions, and percentage reduction in carbon emissions in the six case studies ………..…….82 Table 5.4: Bioclimatic conditions – current and from this research…………….…. 84 Table 5.5: LEED credits for reuse, waste management, recycled content and use of regional materials in construction…………………………………………………...88 Table 5.6: Bioclimatic conditions of the research considered in the green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM) ……………………………………….…….….93 Table 5.7: Bioclimatic conditions – current; from best practice with green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM); and from this research model……….……….99 Table 5.8: Relative use of bioclimatic criteria in Current practice, Green Tools and for Research………………………………………………….……….……/…….101 xii List of Tables CHAPTER SIX Table 6.1: Case Studies – Construction systems of the main elements (floors, walls and roofs) ................................................................................................................. 106 CHAPTER SEVEN Table 7.1: Research model (bioclimatic criteria) applied to the six case studies (data extracted from Tables 5.4 and 5.6) .......................................................................... 111 Table 7.2: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the floor construction systems of the case studies ................................................................. 121 Table 7.3: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in the floor construction systems of the case studies ....................................................................................... 122 Table 7.4: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the floor construction systems of the case studies expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.2) ................................................................................................................. 123 Table 7.5: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the wall construction systems of the case studies .................................................................. 124 Table 7.6: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in the wall construction systems of the case studies ....................................................................................... 124 Table 7.7: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the wall construction systems of the case studies expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.5) ................................................................................................................. 125 Table 7.8: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the roof construction systems of the case studies .................................................................. 126 Table 7.9: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in the roof construction systems of the case studies ....................................................................................... 126 Table 7.10: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the roof construction systems of the case studies expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.8) ................................................................................................................. 127 Table 7.11: Potential construction carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the whole construction systems of the six case studies ...................................... 128 Table 7.12: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in the whole construction systems of the case studies .................................................................. 128 Table 7.13: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the whole construction systems of the case studies expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.11) ............................................................................................................... 129 Table 7.14: Bioclimatic conditions – current; from best practice with green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM); from this research model (BDP ..................... 134 Table 7.15: Bioclimatic criteria examined in general Australian floor, wall and roof construction systems using the research model and the Green Star rating tool ....... 136 Table 7.16: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for general Australian floor construction systems ..................................................................... 137 Table 7.17: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in the general Australian floor construction systems ..................................................................... 137 Table 7.18: Potential carbon emission reductions in general Australian floor construction systems expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.16) ........ 138 Table 7.19: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for general Australian wall construction systems ...................................................................... 139 Table 7.20: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in general Australian wall construction systems ........................................................................................ 140 xiii List of Tables Table 7.21: Potential carbon emission reductions in general Australian wall construction systems expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.19) ......... 142 Table 7.22: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for general Australian roof construction systems ....................................................................... 143 Table 7.23: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in general Australian roof construction systems ........................................................................................ 144 Table 7.24: Potential carbon emission reductions in general Australian wall construction systems expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.22) ......... 145 xiv Abbreviation ABBREVIATIONS ADAA Ash Development Association of Australia AECOM Architecture, Engineering, Consulting, Operations, and Maintenance AIBS Australian Institute of Building Surveyors AGIC Australian Green Infrastructure Council ASA Australian Standard Associations ASI Australian Steel Institute ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BCSA British Constructional Steel Association BES Building Environmental System BRE Building Research Establishment BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology BFS Blast Furnace Slag CCAA Cement, Concrete, Aggregates & Australia CEEQUAL Civil Engineering Environmental Quality CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organization EDG Environmental Design Guide EE Embodied Energy EEA European Union Agency EEC European Economic Community EC Embodied Carbon EDP Energy Designs Partnership EU European Union FSC Forest Stewardship Council GBCA Green Building Council of Australia GC Geopolymer Cement GHG Green House Gas GER Gross energy requirement GS Green Star ICE Institution of Civil Engineers IECC International Energy Conservation Code IMPACT Integrated Material Profile and Costing Tool IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISCA Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LEED-NC LEED New Construction LCA Leftover Concrete Aggregate xv Abbreviations LCLCRC Low Carbon Living Capital Research Centre LTU Louisiana Technology University MARSS Materials from Alternative Recycled and Secondary Sources NMSB Nationale Milieu database Stichting Bouwkaliteit NRMCA National Ready Mixed Concrete Association OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development PC Portland Cement PCER Potential Carbon Emission Reductions PER Process Energy Requirement PFA Pulverised Fuel Ash PER Process Energy Requirement RCA Recycled Concrete Aggregate RA Recycled Aggregate RMIT Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology SCM Supplementary Cementitious Materials SEDA Sustainable Energy Development Agency SUT Swinburne University of Technology UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNEPA United Nations Environmental Protection Agency UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNEP-SBCI UNEP Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative UNSW University of New South Wales USGBC US Green Building Council USQ University of Southern Queensland VOA Voice of America WCED World Commission on Environment and Development WFEO World Federation of Engineering Organizations xvi Chapter One Overview CHAPTER ONE THE NECESSITY TO REDUCE THE CARBON EMISSIONS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 1.1 Overview The UN recognises climate change and global warming as major concerns of sustainable development. According to a past US President, Barack Obama, climate change has emerged as the greatest threat of the 21st century (Pande 2015). For example, several cities in the US, Mozambique, Bangladesh and other countries will disappear over the next hundred years; and New York, London, Rio de Janeiro and Shanghai will be among the cities that could flood in coming decades (Friedman 2009). What mankind takes from nature cannot always be compensated, and can often only be produced by nature itself. Humans thus need to use less of the earth’s natural resources to allow future generations to fulfil their own needs. The aim of the research presented in this thesis is to outline one area where it is possible to reduce the use of natural resources, that is within building construction. As will be seen in subsequent chapters, there is great potential for reduction of carbon emissions during building construction, but only where appropriate methods are used during the construction process. The focus of this study is the degree to which carbon emissions released from energy use in building construction can be reduced through use of bioclimatic principles. The chapter is presented in seven sections. Section 1.1 introduces this study. Section 1.2 provides the background to this research. Section 1.3 considers the research problem. Section 1.4 discusses the scope and limitations of this research. Section 1.5 considers the aim of this research. Section 1.6 considers a number of questions that will be answered during conduct of the research. Section 1.7 provides an outline of the chapters in this thesis 1.2 Background to this Research The United Nations Environment Program reports in its Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative (UNEP SBCI 2009) that the building sector is responsible for 40 per cent of global energy use. This sector also generates more than one third of 1 Chapter One Overview global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and is the largest emission source in most countries around the world. In Australia, the building sector is reported to be one of the largest contributors to Australian greenhouse gas emissions, and thus has the greatest potential for a significant reduction in GHG emissions as compared to other major emitting sectors (McKinsey 2008). The UN maintains that it is necessary for countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by half in the next forty years. Developed and developing countries have thus agreed to cut their emissions from between 26 to 47 per cent by 2030. To achieve this goal, there will be increasing restrictions on gasoline-powered vehicles on the streets of European countries over the next few years, and the United Nations proposes spending $100 billion per year to achieve the Paris targets. In reference to this, the UN believes that reduced emissions from the building sector will have multiple benefits for both the global economy and society (Chini 2005; UNEP SBCI 2009; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC 2015). According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the energy consumption of buildings could be reduced by between 30 to 50 per cent by 2020 (UNEP SBCI 2009). However, Treloar (1998) maintains that construction carbon emissions in the building industry can potentially be reduced by up to six times their current levels. Related to this, the UK government has funded research planning to achieve an 80 per cent reduction in construction carbon emissions in the near future (UK Indemand 2014). It remains to be seen whether these reductions can be achieved. 1.3 The Research Problem This study proposes that the carbon emissions of building construction can be dramatically reduced through the use of bioclimatic design principles (BDP). These are known techniques that reduce the embodied energy and generated carbon emissions of building construction, but the question remains as to how great a reduction can actually be achieved. This research focuses on three main areas that can measure potential carbon reduction during building construction – first, carbon emission from energy 2 Chapter One Overview consumed during the extraction and production of building materials; second, carbon emission from the energy consumed during the construction processes in building implementation; and finally, carbon emission from the energy consumed in transportation. 1.4 Scope and Limitations of this Research The building lifecycle is considered as composed of five stages – Stage One, Extraction, covers the extraction of raw materials for the project including fuel used; Stage Two, Production, includes the production, pre-assembling and assembling of materials for the building project concerned; Stage Three, Construction, refers to activities during construction of the building; Stage Four, Operation, includes the use and maintenance activities required during operation of the building; and Stage Five, Demolition, encompasses the demolition and disposal of the building. These five stages are known as a ‘cradle-to-grave’ building lifecycle. Within the building lifecycle, all energy used and carbon generated in extraction from mining (Stage One) until the construction products leave the manufacturing gate (Stage Two) are within the boundary condition known as ‘cradle-to-gate’ in the construction industry. A further boundary condition is termed ‘cradle-to-site’ which takes into consideration Stages One to Three of the building lifecycle, and includes all energy consumed and generated carbon emissions until the product has reached the point of use on the construction site (Greenspec 2015). This cradle-to-site boundary condition is the focus of this present research study. This study thus takes as its focus construction carbon emission reductions during the first three stages of the building lifecycle, namely during extraction, production and construction. This presents one limitation of this present study in that the embodied energy and relevant carbon emission calculations will only be considered for these three stages, and not for stages four (operation) and five (demolition) of the building lifecycle. A second limitation is that the main building elements that will be examined in this study include only the floors, walls and roofs. The finishing, stairs, windows and doors will not be considered in the calculations. 3 Chapter One Overview 1.5 Research Aims Research is lacking on decreasing the embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction by consideration of criteria based on bioclimatic design principles. This present study proposes that consideration of bioclimatic principles during construction processes can reduce the energy consumption and carbon emissions in the pre-construction and construction stages of the building lifecycle (stages one to three). This research aims to develop a research model with criteria identified from bioclimatic design principles; and apply that model to the floor, wall and roof construction systems of six selected case studies, and to general Australian construction systems. This will be to identify the potential reductions in carbon emission achievable in these scenarios. 1.6 Research Questions Many organisations and legal entities that exist to control construction activities have produced a range of recommendations intended to reduce energy consumption and relevant carbon emissions during the building process. However, there are a number of problematic issues that remain unaddressed. For example, no established benchmarks exist to measure construction carbon emissions reduction. Each construction project is unique, and this limits the ability of governmental agencies to develop effective environmental regulations and incentives to control carbon emissions. During the construction process, the amount of energy consumed and level of resulting carbon emissions are highly variable. Several concerns and questions can be raised about the construction process. These include: 1/ Is existing construction practice sustainable? 2/ What countries are the leaders in construction carbon emissions reduction? 3/ How can the construction industry assist governments to achieve the emission targets accepted in the Paris agreement? 4/ Can the building sector play a major role in an emissions reduction scheme, and would this be cost effective? 4 Chapter One Overview 5/ What are the levels of embodied energy and associated carbon emissions of different elements of the construction process? 6/ To what extent are techniques to reduce carbon emissions of construction processes known and applied? 7/ What alternatives are available when the existing techniques for reduction of construction emissions are applied, but the results are not substantial? 8/ What percentage of current construction carbon emissions in the Australian construction sector be reduced? These questions are answered in the research conducted for this thesis. 1.7 Outline of the Chapters in this Thesis This research is presented in eight chapters. Chapter One presents an introduction to this thesis and sets the context for the remaining chapters. There is consideration of the research problem, background, and scope and limitations of this project. Chapter Two reviews literature in relation to construction and sustainability, with a focus on the embodied energy of buildings and tools available for its measurement. Bioclimatic design principles are also introduced as a method to reduce the embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction. Chapter Three reviews literature in relation to sustainable development and the environmental impact of construction. There is also consideration of the decisions and agreements made at several environmental conferences by a range of countries and agencies. Chapter Four discusses the embodied energies of building materials in greater detail, the method for their conversion to equivalent carbon emissions, and a range of techniques for reducing the carbon emissions of construction. Chapter Five provides greater detail on bioclimatic design principles, and their consideration in currently available green rating systems (LEED, BREEAM, Green 5 Chapter One Overview Star).1 The research model based on bioclimatic design criteria is also described in this chapter. Chapter Six outlines the research design and methodology used in this study, and identifies the sources of the embodied energy and carbon emissions data used in this research. Chapter Seven presents the detailed results and analysis from applying the developed research model to construction elements of the floor, wall and roof in the six case studies selected for this research, and also within similar elements of general Australian construction systems. Chapter Eight provides an overview to the conclusions made from this study, and makes associated recommendations that need consideration by the Australian construction sector. Recommendations are also made as to further research that should be undertaken to complement the findings from this project. 1 LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology) are green building assessment tools. 6 Chapter Two Construction, climate and sustainability CHAPTER TWO CONSTRUCTION, CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY 2.1 Overview The energy consumption of the building sector across the world is substantial, around 40 per cent of global energy use (UNEP SBCI 2009), and this has significant related effects on the environment and climate change. It is thus imperative that the energy use and carbon emissions of the global building sector are reduced. Approaches towards achieving this are the focus of this chapter. Section 2.1 provides the background to this chapter. Section 2.2 review relationships between the embodied energy of buildings and sustainable development. Section 2.3 considers how carbon emissions during construction may be reduced. Section 2.4 discusses tools that are available for measurement of embodied energy and carbon emissions of buildings. Section 2.5 considers Bioclimatic Design Principles and current research relating to their use. Section 2.6 summarises the content of this chapter. 2.2 Embodied Energy of buildings and Sustainable Development In striving towards ecologically sustainable development, Lawson (1996) presents a study taking as its focus the embodied energies of common building materials and their assembly in various construction systems in the Australian context. The detail in this study presents useful and practical information, which assists in the development of a methodology for ecological sustainability in respect to building design and construction. This is achieved through the description of the manufacturing process and its environmental impact, as well as through the provision of the embodied energy ratings of Australian building materials and their assembly in a manner useful for building designers. Lawson (1996) also provides detail on a method for assessment of the embodied energy of construction materials as combined in contemporary Australian building and construction systems. This method is useful when considering holistic evaluation of a given building, taking into account not only its embodied energies, but also the building’s various environmental impacts. Lawson’s (1996) method uses seven criteria – one relates to the siting of the building, five criteria are concerned with the 7 Chapter Two Construction, climate and ssustainability choice and use of building materials, and the final criterion pertains to an estimate of the building’s operational energy performance. The original calculations in Lawson (1996) were based on a Process Energy Requirement (PER) analysis. This estimates the embodied energy directly related to the manufacture of the construction materials concerned (Milne & Reardon 2014). However, in later work on Australian construction systems, Lawson (2006) switched to the use of other calculation methods, including input-output (I-O) analysis, and hybrid methods combining PER and I-O, for embodied energy analysis. These latter methods calculate the total direct and indirect energy requirements for each output made by a construction system, and figures obtained for embodied energies are significantly higher than for PER calculations (Lawson 2006). Mawhinney (2002) presents a consideration of sustainable development from the viewpoint of economists and environmentalists, and makes clear the impact that it may have on their workplace practice. It is noted that ‘sustainable development’ is an overused and sometimes misunderstood phrase. Four key questions are thus raised: these relate to whether sustainable development defines a starting point, a process, or the end-goal; whether sustainable development can provide a coherent theory of practice; whether it is a workable concept in practice; and, finally, whether sustainable development can provide a balanced solution, or whether balance forms part of the solution to sustainable development. Mawhinney (2002) strongly makes the point that ecologically sustainable construction practice must not be limited to the location of the project concerned, but consideration must also be given to environmental impacts over the entire life cycle of a project. Craig and Ding (2001) present discussion of sustainable practice in the built environment. Various building scenarios are presented together with their proposed solutions whereby development can be undertaken in an environmentally efficient and sustainable manner. There is also consideration of the impact of environmental economics on the construction industry. These authors also stress that an assessment of environmental impact must consider not just the site location of construction, but the environmental impact of all aspects of the project concerned. 8 Chapter Two Construction, climate and sustainability Sabnis (2012) considers the use of concrete in sustainable design and construction, relating it to best practice in today’s built environment. Given the current pressure on the construction industry to reduce waste, it is noted that there is increasing refurbishing, recycling and reuse of concrete in building construction as the leastwaste option. Concrete as a construction material is also justified as having significant economic green benefits (Sabnis 2012). It is becoming increasingly apparent that to be ecologically friendly, building design must consider the entire life cycle of a building project and the associated embodied energies. This is evidenced in a study by Crowther (2015) which found that by designing buildings for disassembly, the potential for embodied energy recovery could be as high as 25 to 50 per cent of the total life cycle energy. In relation to this, Haynes (2010) believes that if buildings were designed with their future deconstruction in mind, we could re-value the materials and components in them, and also recapture the energy embodied within them. This embodied energy of the built environment has been estimated at between 10 and 20 per cent of Australia’s total energy consumption (Haynes 2010). Volz and Stovner (2010) report on embodied energy in masonry construction. Traditionally, masonry takes a considerable amount of energy to produce, and fired materials are generally used which are energy intensive in their production (e.g. clay brick, Portland cement). In contrast to this, non-fired materials and related methods offer substantial energy savings. For example, fly ash has an embodied energy which is effectively zero (provided that the fly ash is considered as a readily-available waste product), and it can be combined with mineral oxide pigments and fine aggregate to produce fly ash bricks in a non-fired process. Fly ash brick production uses 85 per cent less energy than fired clay brick production. Fly ash can also be used as a partial replacement for Portland cement in concrete masonry units. Additional reductions in energy can also be achieved by using recycled products. For example, recycled steel can be used in the steel reinforcing of concrete, which can reduce embodied energy by up to 75 per cent as compared to new steel production (Volz & Stovner 2010). Following the passage of legislation, the British construction industry are now legally obliged to reduce their carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. In relation 9 Chapter Two Construction, climate and ssustainability to this, UK Indemand is an academic research centre based in the United Kingdom comprising more than 30 full-time researchers working across four universities (the University of Cambridge, the University of Leeds, Nottingham Trent University, and the University of Bath). UK Indemand is concerned with reducing the use of materials which have energy intensive production methods, this being towards trying to meet the 80 per cent reduction target (UK Indemand 2014). UK Indemand identifies three main ways in which construction carbon emissions can be reduced. First, there is redesign which reconsiders the construction process to ensure than there is minimum material wastage. Second, there is reuse which involves construction of a new building from the components of an old building as far as is practical: this presupposes the deconstruction rather than the demolition of old buildings. Finally, there must be an intention to reduce materials usage by ensuring that, during the manufacturing and construction process, materials have been designed to last and are used for longer periods in order to slow down their rate of replacement (UK Indemand 2014). A study by Myer, Fuller and Crawford (2012) from Deakin University found that the use of renewable materials in residential buildings can reduce their embodied energy by up to 28 per cent. However, even where renewable material alternatives could be located, there was often insufficient information available to accurately calculate their embodied energy. These authors concluded that while there is potential to reduce the embodied energy in construction by use of renewable materials, more widespread use of renewable energy in the stages of manufacturing and transportation would be required to maximise this potential reduction in embodied energy. Thormark (2006) investigated how material choice may affect both embodied energy and recycling potential in an energy-efficient apartment-type housing project in Sweden. The calculated energy for operation was 45 kWh/m2 of floor-area per year. The embodied energy component was 40 per cent of the total energy needed for a lifetime expectancy of 50 years. This author noted that in the design phase of buildings, it is of great importance to reduce both the overall operational energy needs and the choice of building materials in respect to their later recycling potential. 10 Chapter Two Construction, climate and sustainability While a material may be recyclable, the forms of that recycling and how disassembly is to be achieved must also be considered. Thormark (2006) concluded that if attention is paid to such factors in the design of buildings, then the embodied energy of conventional buildings can be decreased by up to 15 per cent using relatively simple means. Ramesh, Prakash and Shukla (2010) investigated the life cycle energy use of a range of residential and office buildings from 73 case studies in 13 countries. The life cycle energy requirement of conventional residential buildings was in the range of 150– 400kWh/m2 per year compared to that of office buildings, which was 250– 550kWh/m2 per year. They identified that the operation (80–90 per cent) and embodied (10–20 per cent) phases of energy use were significant contributors to the life cycle energy demand of a given building. Research from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) by Crowther (1999) was concerned with design for disassembly to recover embodied energy. It was found that designing for disassembly may require an initial extra input of direct energy during the construction phase of a building. Disassembly requires more energy than demolition, but the potential recovery of embodied energy in the materials and components salvaged for reuse can be as high as one third of the total energy use of a building, a percentage much higher than that required for disassembly. There are also other relative benefits from reuse and recycling of materials represented by the saving of natural resources and a reduction in waste generation and pollution (Crowther 1999). 2.3 Reduction of the Construction Carbon Emissions of Buildings The carbon emissions generated during the construction of buildings has become a topic of importance given the increasing attention being paid to the reduction of the construction carbon emissions in Australia and the rest of the developed world. A range of research that pertains to this area is presented in this section. 2.3.1 A common carbon metric The United Nations Environment Programme’s Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative (UNEP-SBCI) represents a partnership between the UN and public and 11 Chapter Two Construction, climate and ssustainability private stakeholders in the building sector, formed to promote sustainable building practices globally. A study by the UNEP in 2009 proposed the use of a Common Carbon Metric that quantifies the weight of carbon dioxide equivalent (kgCO2e) emitted per square metre per annum (kgCO2e/m2/year) by building type and by climate region. The aim of this metric is to accurately measure and quantify greenhouse gas emissions during building operations. The Common Carbon Metric would allow for the collection of consistent data in respect to reporting on the climate performance of existing buildings. Additionally, such a consistent measure would support the formation of policies aimed at the reduction of GHG emissions from buildings. However, the Common Carbon Metric covers only stage four of the building lifecycle, that is carbon emitted during the operation (use and maintenance) of a building (Bisset 2007; UNEP SBCI 2009). 2.3.2 The use of wood in building construction Research performed by the Centre for Sustainable Architecture with Wood (CSAW) has found that the use of timber in new building construction has a lower carbon and environmental impact than comparable building materials. Timber production was found to be a low energy and low impact process, and the use of timber in construction represents an efficient and economical alternative (CSAW 2010). In support of this, Australian research at the RMIT University investigated the environmental impact of a range of building materials in standard house design using life cycle assessment. This research found that the use of wood products rather than other construction materials could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 51 per cent (Carre 2015). 2.3.3 GreenSpec: A green building resource in the UK The foremost green building resource in the UK is GreenSpec, launched in 2003 with government funding. GreenSpec provides advice on sustainable building products, materials and construction techniques, this advice being independent of the interests of companies and trading bodies. This organisation suggests several factors that need to be considered when aiming to reduce the embodied carbon in construction activities. First, building design must aim to minimise the use of materials wherever possible, thus reducing embodied carbon. Second, the building elements with the highest carbon impact need to be identified, and where possible these should be 12 Chapter Two Construction, climate and sustainability replaced with alternative materials with a lower carbon impact. For example, reduction in the use of cement in construction significantly reduces the carbon impact of the building process. Alternatives to cement include Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) and Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GGBS) (Greenspec 2015). In respect to concrete production, an investigation by Turner and Collins (2013) performed in Melbourne quantified the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2-e) generated by all activities involved in the production of one cubic metre of concrete. This included all processes from obtaining raw materials through to the manufacturing and construction of the concrete. They compared the CO2-e footprint generated by 100 per cent Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) with concrete containing geopolymer binders. The CO2-e footprint of geopolymer concrete was found to be approximately nine per cent less than comparable concrete containing 100 per cent OPC binder, a figure much less than predicted by earlier studies. The factors that led to these higher carbon emissions for geopolymer concrete in the study by Turner and Collins (2013) were threefold. First, there was inclusion of the carbon emitted during the mining, treatment and transport of raw materials required for manufacture of the alkali activators required for geopolymers. Second, the actual manufacture of these alkali activators required a significant amount of energy use. Finally, there was a need for an elevated temperature during the curing of geopolymer concrete to achieve reasonable strength, again an energy-requiring process. 2.4 Measuring the embodied energy values of buildings Note is made here of the Inventory of Carbon and Energy research database maintained at the University of Bath in the UK. This provides an inventory of embodied energy and carbon emissions for building materials in the UK (Inventory of Carbon & Energy 2011). In respect to measurement of the embodied energy values of buildings, the ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) standards promote sustainable development, particularly in reference to embodied CO2-eq analysis. However, it is accepted that embodied CO2-eq values are probabilistic rather than 13 Chapter Two Construction, climate and ssustainability definite. This is due to weakness in the data gathering on product-related CO2 use and emissions. To address this weakness, research by Acquaye, Duffy and Basu (2011) presents an analysis of hybrid embodied CO2-eq in building using stochastic analytical methods. These authors apply this stochastic analysis to a case study involving seven apartment buildings from the construction sector in Ireland. The details of this stochastic analysis are beyond the scope of this thesis. However, these authors conclude that: Greater methodological and informational benefits are derived from the stochastic hybrid ECO2-eq intensity analysis of buildings compared to deterministic analysis … This can provide useful information if embodied CO2-eq standards and regulatory measures are to be formulated … [and] provides more useful information to building designers and policy makers (Acquaye, Duffy & Basu 2011, p. 1302). The stochastic embodied emissions methodology employed by Acquaye, Duffy and Basu (2011) can be applied to any type of building, not only in construction but also other sectors. This methodology can also be applied internationally. 2.4.1 Tools to measure embodied energy and construction emissions There are various tools that have been developed to measure construction carbon emissions and embodied energy during the five stages of the building lifecycle (extraction, production, construction, operation and demolition). Some of these tools are applicable to the international context, but others relate only to a specific country and region or context. A discussion of some of these tools is presented in this section. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) group in the UK developed ‘Envest’, one of the first online software packages that aimed to assist in analysis of building design towards achieving optimum environmental impact and whole life costs. The Envest design tool first appeared in 2002, and went through two revisions to the Envest 2 version. However, Envest was a commercial tool that required companies to purchase a licence for use. There was consequently little uptake by the market, and Envest was discontinued in favour of a simple and free database tool called 14 Chapter Two Construction, climate and sustainability ‘IMPACT’ which stands for the Integrated Material Profile and Costing Tool (Watson, Jones & Mitchell 2004; Envest 2 2016). In 2009 in the United Kingdom, the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council provided £4.8 million to encourage British companies to develop new green design and decision tools (TSB 2010). However, IMPACT is currently the tool that is most commonly used. IMPACT aims to integrate Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing and Building Information Modelling (BIM). It is a tool that is integrated into existing 3D, CAD and BIM software, in a way that “allows construction professionals to measure the embodied environmental impact and life cycle cost performance of buildings … The results generated by IMPACT can be used in whole building assessment schemes like BREEAM” (IMPACT 2016). An Australian software provider called eTool has developed a life cycle assessment application (eToolLCD) that is compliant with IMPACT’s LCA method. Consequently, use of eToolLCD can earn building designers two credits in the BREEAM New Construction UK, and up to six credits in BREEAM International. The eToolLCD application can be used for the design of all types of building projects from single houses to multi-residential buildings, to multi-billion-dollar infrastructural developments (eToolLCD 2015). There are life cycle analysis tools available in other countries. For example, ‘Elodie’ is a tool developed in France to meet the demands of various French environmental declarations relating to life cycle analysis in construction. Similarly, in Germany the German Sustainable Building Council has developed the ‘GaBi Build-it’ tool for mandatory use in assessment of building LCA (GaBi Build-it 2010). Additionally, the Dutch government has developed several tools for use in its regulated embodied impact assessment for new housing and office buildings that covers all stages of the building lifecycle (Nationale Milieu Stichting Bouwkaliteit NMSB 2013). In establishing the ISO-21930 International Standard, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) in collaboration with the UK Green Building Council, launched the first embodied carbon database for UK buildings in 2007. This allows 15 Chapter Two Construction, climate and ssustainability users to compare the embodied carbon results for their building with others in respect to the building life cycle and building elements, and companies and those involved in building and construction can benchmark their building designs. Such national benchmarks will assist in the assessment and measurement of the embodied carbon in building LCA, and thus identification of where reductions in carbon can be achieved during the building life cycle (ISO 21930 International Standard 2007; Brown, 2014). In the United States, the ‘Tally’ application and database have been developed as a BIM plug-in to assist with building LCA. This application requires that architects and engineers use Revit software to quantify the environmental impact of building materials. Tally provides accurate life cycle analysis data for building design process in the USA, and the tool allows for comparative analyses of design options. While working on a Revit model, the user can define relationships between BIM elements and construction materials from the Tally database. The result is life cycle assessment on demand, and an important layer of decision-making information within the same period that building designs are generated. As a Revit application, Tally is easy to use and requires no special modelling practices (EPD-TALLY 2008). 2.5 Bioclimatic Design Principles The design process that brings together the disciplines of human physiology, climatology and building physics (Olgyay 1963) Bioclimatic design principles (BDP) were identified several decades ago in 1963 by the Olgyay brothers (Altomonte 2008). These twin brothers from Hungary defined bioclimatic design principles as those principles that bring together the disciplines of human physiology, climatology and building physics. They have been integrated into building design in the context of regionalism in architecture, and in recent years have been seen as a cornerstone for achieving more sustainable buildings (Hyde 2008). Bioclimatic design principles have been used, investigated and analysed by different people and organisations in the construction industry. For example, the techniques and bioclimatic design principles of the Olgyay brothers provide the foundation for 16 Chapter Two Construction, climate and sustainability much of the building simulation software in use today, and they have also been used to analyse environmental factors and graphical representations of climate (Jones 2003; Hyde 2008). The field of bioclimatic design is adding knowledge to the construction area where the flexible cooperation of several disciplines contributes to the well-being of the human and built environment. The focus of bioclimatic design principles is to develop a design method based on the integration of specialised and interconnected areas of knowledge (Altomonte 2008). 2.5.1 Background to Bioclimatic Design Principles The Olgyay brothers published three books on bioclimatic architecture: Application of Climatic Data to House Design (1954); Solar Control and Shading Devices (1957); and in 1963 by Victor Olgyay only, the well-known Design with Climate: Bioclimatic Approach to Architectural Regionalism (1963). Although the three books share some text and illustrations, there are significant differences between them in respect to the trajectory of environmental building design. The little-known first book of the Olgyays, Application of Climatic Data to House Design, was used to prepare a report for the US Housing and Home Finance Agency. In that book, they suggested a new approach to house design based exclusively on environmental principles. Victor Olgyay (1910–1970) is best known today as the author of his 1963 publication, a book often referenced in the environmental building design field. (Leather & Wesley 2014). As leaders in research in bioclimatic architecture from the early 1950s to the late 1960s, the Olgyay brothers can be considered as the fathers of contemporary environmental building design (Leather & Wesley 2014). Related to this, Pereira (2002) believes that building design should be inspired by nature, and aim to minimise environmental impact. To do this, issues that must be considered in the design include health and well-being, energy and sustainability. 2.5.2 Current research on Bioclimatic Design Principles As noted, the research and publications of the Olgyays provided the inspiration for much of the building simulation software of today. For example, other than the 17 Chapter Two Construction, climate and ssustainability difference between working on graph paper and using computer-generated graphics, Autodesk’s Ecotect Analysis program (simulation and building energy analysis software) and the Olgyays’ techniques for the analysis of environmental factors and graphical representation of climate are quite similar. The manner in which the Olgyays established connections between building design and climate science laid the foundation for the development of environmental simulation, one of contemporary architecture’s leading methods of form generation. Victor Olgyay’s teaching, however, represents another kind of thinking, a broader concern for architecture beyond energy performance. Considerable progress in reducing the energy consumption of new buildings has been achieved through use of modern bioclimatic techniques. Attention has now turned to reducing the energy consumption of existing buildings. By use of appropriate technologies and techniques of bioclimatic retrofitting and design, it is possible to significantly reduce the energy consumption of existing buildings by a factor of five to six times as compared to a conventional building (Jones 2003; Hyde 2008). Bioclimatic design principles have also been used for mitigation and adaptation strategies to achieve sustainable development in climate change and architecture. For example, the following is taken from a study by Altomonte (2008): Site & Climate Analysis; comprising the analysis of the site, exposure, climate, orientation, topographical factors, local constraints and the availability of natural resources and ecologically sustainable forms of energy considered in relation to the duration and intensity of their use (Altomonte 2008, p. 105). More recent research at the University of Sydney has used bioclimatic design principles in retrofitting of existing buildings and urban networks. The results show that substantial improvement in energy performance can be realistically achieved through the implementation of bioclimatic design principles in retrofitting of existing buildings (Liu 2010; Architecture 2015). 18 Chapter Two Construction, climate and sustainability Use of bioclimatic design principles has been integrated into building design in the context of regionalism in architecture, and in recent years has been seen as a cornerstone for achieving more sustainable buildings (Hyde & Yeang 2009). Research has found that appropriate bioclimatic design can significantly reduce energy consumption in a building as compared to conventional building design (Jong & Rigdon 1998). More detail and analysis of bioclimatic design principles is presented in Chapter Four. 2.6 Summary This chapter identifies that there are numerous studies and research on embodied energy, carbon emissions and bioclimatic design principles in respect to building and construction. However, reducing embodied energy and carbon emissions through use of BDPs has received little attention in the Australian context. The focus of this research is thus on reducing embodied energy and carbon emissions during the building lifecycle through use of bioclimatic design principles in Australian construction systems. 19 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements CHAPTER THREE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS 3.1 Overview Climate change, depletion of natural resources and the rising global population have increased international attention to the problems facing the environment, and the increasing necessity to achieve sustainability in development and construction. This is reflected in the range of international conferences which have taken place over recent decades, culminating in the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015. Section 3.1 provides a brief overview to this chapter. Section 3.2 considers the notional of sustainability, and its relationship to sustainable development and construction. Section 3.3 discusses the environmental impact of building. Section 3.4 considers a range of key decisions and international reaction to environmental issues as demonstrated within a range of international agreements and protocols from the 1980s to the present. Section 3.5 provides a summary of the main themes within this chapter. 3.2 Sustainability Sustainability is at the centre of any governmental discussion or decision related to energy crises, climate change or global warming. Such considerations have several times brought world leaders together for discussion and policy formation. Examples include the oil crisis summit in 1973; the UN Geneva Convention on Air Pollution in 1979; the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer in 1987; and the Kyoto Protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gases in 1997 (Adams 2003). More recently, there has been the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007; and the Paris Agreement on Global Warming in 2015 (UNFCCC 2015). In the past, the word ‘sustainability’ had a simple meaning related to the act of continuing (sustaining) a given behaviour or action for an ongoing period. More recently, sustainability has assumed a new meaning related to the quality of not being environmentally harmful. Hendriks (2001) extends this and argues that any definition of sustainability should include not only the notion of environment, but also social and economic interests such as health, wellbeing, safety, care for living space, prosperity and related concepts. 20 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements The resources humanity now takes from the earth increasingly cannot be balanced and reversed by nature. The rapidly increasing world population has led to overuse and increasing depletion of global resources from the natural environment. There is also global warming and increasing environmental problems. The health and wellbeing of future generations depends on sustainable environmental policies being established as soon as possible. The aim of such policies must be to create an ecologically healthy environment based on a program of sustainability and sustainable development (Hendriks 2001). 3.2.1 Sustainable Development The Brundtland Report of 1987 issued by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) identified the urgency of progressing towards a notion of economic development that could be sustained without depletion of natural resources or harm to the environment. The report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, para 1). Three obligations follow on from this definition of sustainable development. First, there must be responsible use of resources now and into the future. This implies a responsibility to leave future generations with both natural resources and enough scientific/cultural capital to allow them to meet their needs. Second, there must be efficient protection of global resources. This implies a responsibility to protect and effectively manage all environmental resources including land, water, air and biodiversity. Thirdly, there must be equal sharing of global resources. This implies a duty to share resources locally and globally based on equal access for all (Edwards 1999; Mawhinney 2002). Following on from these obligations, in 2000, a wider definition was suggested by the UN’s National Strategies for Sustainable Development that encompasses not only sustainable development, but also the notion that there must be associated sustainable social and economic development. This allows for the needs of the present generation without threatening the ability of future generations to meet their needs. In respect to this definition, the UK Department of Environment and Transport 21 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements believes that alongside sustainable social and economic development, there must also be environmental protection and wise use of natural resources (Mawhinney 2002). The main notions within these various definitions of sustainable development are summarised in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Main notions within definitions of sustainable development Definition Message Brundtland Report (WCED 1987)  Responsible use of resources now and in the future  Efficient protection of global resources  Equal sharing of global resources National Strategies for Sustainable Development (2000, cited by Mawhinney 2002)  Similar to WCED definition, but with the added notion that there must be social and economic development along with sustainable development UK Department of Environment and Transport (Mawhinney 2002)  Promotes a definition of sustainable development that maintains social and economic growth alongside environmental protection and careful use of resources Sources: WCED 1987; Mawhinney 2002. 3.2.2 Sustainable Construction The Brundtland Report considers sustainable construction as part of the more general area of sustainable development. Sustainable construction may be defined as a way of designing and constructing buildings that provides a healthy, ecological environment, one that begins to address the effects of problems caused in the past, and that provides for the needs of existing and future generations. (WCED 1987). The Future Foundation in the UK extends this definition of sustainable construction to include refurbishment of existing structures. They note that sustainable construction and development promotes environmental, social and economic gains both for the present and future generations, and that our economy, environment and social well-being are interdependent (Future Foundation 2015). Hendriks (2001) agrees that to be sustainable, construction must not only consider the impact of building on nature and the environment, but also support the physical, psychological and social aspects of human health. Additionally, this author notes that sustainable construction must also take the durability of construction materials into account, in that any materials used must serve for at least the expected lifetime of the 22 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements building concerned. Edwards (1999) also argues that sustainable construction must integrate low energy design with materials that have minimal environmental impact at all points in the building lifecycle. Essentially, sustainable construction assumes careful consideration of resource efficiency, energy conservation, and environmental principles during the entire lifecycle of any building project from cradle to grave (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD 2003; Hui 2015). The focus of this study concerns the carbon emissions generated by the construction industry in Australia, and their potential reduction through use of bioclimatic design principles. This is of increasing importance, as reducing construction carbon emissions has become a mandate for sustainable construction. The themes running through the various notions and definitions of sustainable construction discussed in this section reflect this: to be sustainable, building projects must consider conservation of resources used for construction, environmental impact, and protection of biodiversity. Sustainable construction must aim to provide an ecologically healthy environment and optimum living conditions to meet the needs of existing and future generations. 3.3 Environmental impact of building Climate change and global warming have been recognized as major concerns of sustainable development. By 2100, sea levels are predicted to rise by two metres if current levels of carbon emissions are not reduced (DeConto & Pollard 2016). If this occurs, up to fourteen cities in the United States will disappear over the next century; and several countries including Mozambique and Bangladesh will be completely inundated by the rising ocean levels (Friedman 2009). The UN believes that humanity needs to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 per cent within the next forty years in order to avoid these worst-case scenarios of climate change (UNEP 2009; UNEP SBCI 2009). The building process produces large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions during construction, demolition, reconstruction and/or restoration of buildings. These activities also produce large quantities of construction and demolition waste, and thus have a high environmental impact. They also consume large amounts of global 23 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements resources, not only minerals, but also water and energy in its various forms (UNEP SBCI 2009). A report by Naik (2008) estimates that resources are being extracted from the earth at a rate of 20 per cent greater than the earth can produce or replenish. However, it is believed that if the principles of sustainable development are followed, this unsustainable level of resource consumption will be reduced. Environmental considerations must therefore take an equal part alongside economic considerations if the construction industry is to achieve development that is sustainable (Naik 2008). This is not an impossible expectation because, based on existing technology, the energy consumption in both new and existing buildings can be cut by an estimated 30 to 50 per cent without significant increase in the cost (UNEP SBCI 2009). A study by the UN’s Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative (UNEP SBCI 2009) considered the quantity of carbon emissions produced during the building lifecycle. It was found that the building sector generates more than one third of global GHG emissions, and in most countries, is the largest source of carbon emissions. Transportation of people, goods and services to and from the building site was also noted as one of the most significant ways in which energy was consumed. In global terms, the environmental impact of the construction process was considerable, being responsible for 40 per cent of energy use, 30 per cent of raw materials taken from nature, 25 per cent of total waste, 25 per cent of water use, and 12 per cent of land use (UNEP SBCI 2009) The research in this thesis considers only the first three stages of the building lifecycle (extraction, production and construction). However, these stages produce only 10 to 20 per cent of the total carbon emissions during the entire lifecycle of a building, the remainder being produced in stages four and five (operation and demolition). In fact, most carbon emissions are produced during the operational phase (UNEP SBCI 2009). Future research will consider these last two stages of the building lifecycle as they are beyond the scope of the present research. In Australia, buildings and their users are responsible for between 18 per cent (ClimateWorks Australia 2010) and 25 per cent (Commonwealth Scientific and 24 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements Industrial Research Organisation CSIRO 2000) of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, depending on the source of the estimate. Residential buildings account for around 58 per cent of these emissions, and commercial buildings for around 42 percent. It is estimated that the energy embodied in existing building stock in Australia is equivalent to around ten years of the nation’s energy consumption. In this respect, the choice of materials and design principles has a significant, but previously unrecognised, impact on the energy required to construct a building (CSIRO 2000). A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that the Australian building sector has the greatest potential for a significant reduction of carbon emissions as compared to other major emitting sectors. Costs to reduce GHG emissions were also noted to be relatively lower in the building sector as compared to other emitting sectors (Levine & Urge-Vorsatz 2007). In respect to this, it has been estimated that a total of 60 Mt of carbon-reduction opportunities could be found in the Australian building sector by 2030 (McKinsey 2008). A decrease in carbon emissions from Australian buildings is consequently a priority for both the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA 2008), and the Federal Government which has announced plans to cut emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 (Hasham, Bourke & Cox 2015). In absolute figures, it is estimated that the Australian building sector has potential to contribute to around 11 per cent of the carbon reductions to be achieved by 2020. Around three quarters (77 perc cent) of these opportunities for reduction are within the commercial sector (including 16 Mt CO2-e for existing building retrofits, and 4 Mt CO2-e for new builds). Such reductions offer an average net saving to society of $99 per tonne, and offer investors an average profit of A$90 per tonne (ClimateWorks Australia 2010). Drawing these themes about the environmental impact of the construction process together, some general figures can be identified in respect to the global context. The built environment worldwide accounts for some 40 per cent of global GHG emissions, and the construction sector accounts for around 40 per cent of the world’s total energy consumption. Construction is also responsible for approximately half of 25 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements all resources taken from nature, and production and transport of building materials consumes up to 40 per cent of all energy used (UNEP SCBI 2009). These figures are predictably the greatest in developed countries (UNEP SBCI 2009; Technology Strategy Board 2010; Ecospecifier 2015; GreenSpec 2015). Based on the reviewed environmental impacts of building, Table 3.2 is a summary of the environmental impacts of buildings on different levels: globally, in the UK, in the EU and in Australia. 26 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements Table 3.2: Summary of environmental impacts of global construction Global figures  Fourteen U.S. cities, Mozambique and Bangladesh may disappear over the next century (Huffington Post 2013).  New York, London, Rio de Janeiro and Shanghai will be among the cities that could flood by 2100  The built environment accounts for some 40 per cent of global GHG emissions  Buildings are responsible for 40 per cent of global energy consumption  Construction is responsible for nearly half of all resources taken from nature  Resources are extracted at a rate of 20 per cent more than the earth produces (UNEP SBCI 2009)  Production and transport of building materials consumes 25 to 40 per cent of global energy use  In the EU, building and transport use more than 65 per cent of total energy consumption (compared to 60 and 50 per cent in the US and Japan respectively (OECD 2003)  In the EU buildings are responsible for 50 per cent of energy use; production of 50 per cent of ozone depleting chemicals; and 50 per cent of raw materials used by industry (Edwards 1999). UK figures  Building accounts for around 45 per cent of the UK’s total carbon emissions  Up to 50 per cent of ozone depleting chemicals in the UK relate to construction  Construction materials account for 420 million tonnes of material consumption (seven tonnes per person) (UNEP SBCI, 2009; Green Spec 2015)  From 10 to 20 per cent of total construction emissions are produced during extraction of materials  From 80 to 90 per cent of the energy used by construction is consumed during use of a building (Ecospecifier 2015). Australian figures  The building sector is one of the largest contributors to Australian greenhouse gas emissions  Buildings and their users are responsible for almost a quarter of Australia’s greenhouse emissions  Australia spends around $4 billion per year on energy, generating 46.4 million tonnes of CO2 in 1999, and these emissions increase by 3 to 4 per cent annually (Energy Information Administration 2013) Source: Extracted from Chapter Three 3.4 Key decisions and international reaction to environmental issues In recent decades, the building and construction sector have caused considerable environmental problems, as well as a significant impact on the use of vital key resources such as water, air, climate, food supplies and energy resources. The environmental problems include ozone depletion, global warming, acid rain, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the need for energy in the 27 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements transportation and demolition of waste materials. These issues have required international attention, as evidenced in the range topics that have been discussed at various summits over the last fifty years: for example, energy supplies in the 1970s; sustainable development in the 1980s; depletion of the ozone layer and global warming in the 1990s; sustainable construction in the 2000s; and greenhouse gas reduction in recent years (Edwards 1999; IPCC 2011). Since the advent of the world oil crisis in 1973 and the start of the green movement, several important international summits and conferences have been convened in an effort to reduce the impact of human activity on the environment and climate. These include the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED); the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro; the Kyoto Protocol in Japan; the European Environmental Agency (EEA); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the United Nations Environmental Program Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative (UNEP SBCI); and the Paris Agreement in 2015. These conferences and their main themes and outcomes are briefly reviewed in this section. 3.4.1 World Commission on Environment and Development – 1987 The WCED conference in 1987 produced the well-known Brundtland Report, titled as Our Common Future. This conference drew attention to the urgency of making progress toward economic development that could be sustained without depleting natural resources or harming the environment. A key statement (and warning) from this conference was that sustainable development is development that must meet the needs of the present generation, but without compromising the needs of future generations (WCED 1987). Sustainable construction based on the notion of equity and social justice was a cornerstone of the Brundtland Report. The main aim of the WCED enshrined in the Brundtland Report was to promote economic development and growth, but at the same time ensuring that such development considered environmental and social factors within any construction or related program to meet society’s needs for employment, food, energy, water and sanitation (Borowy 2013). 28 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements The report also recommended a major reorientation and refocusing of programs concerning sustainable development within the various sectors of the UN. It was proposed that in such a new system-wide commitment to sustainable development, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) should be the primary source providing environmental data, assessment, reporting, and related support for environmental management. Additionally, the UNEP should be the main advocate and agent for change and cooperation on critical environment and natural resource protection in any project where sustainable development was to be a priority (WCED 1987). The Brundtland Report also highlighted several major global challenges facing humanity including preserving the quality of the environment; stabilising global population; the conservation and enhancement of natural global resources; meeting energy needs; meeting water needs and providing sanitation; and finally the survival of species and ecosystems. Reducing the impact of construction projects on the environment and natural resources assists in meeting these challenges (Borowy 2013). This, in fact, provided the impetus for this present research project on reducing the carbon emissions of construction through application of bioclimatic design principles, thus promoting sustainable construction. 3.4.2 The Earth Summit – 1992 and 2012 The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit, was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (UNCED 1992). A further related summit called the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20, was held in 2012, also in Rio (UNCSD 2012). During these summits, the environment and ecology was the prime focus, with the aim being promotion of sustainable construction and design practices. The major issues discussed at these summits were reducing resource use in construction; minimising the impact of development on the environment; and protecting global biodiversity (UNCED 1992; UNCSD 2012). The most important outcome resulting from the Earth Summit of 1992 was a document called ‘Agenda 21’, a non-binding action plan relating to sustainable development which was agreed to by the representatives of 178 governments 29 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements attending this conference. The subsequent UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012 saw the aims of Agenda 21 reaffirmed by 192 governments represented at this conference (UNCED 1992; UNCSD 2012). The action plan in Agenda 21 included a range of environmental goals to be undertaken by signatories at the local, national and global level. A full consideration of Agenda 21 is beyond the scope of this thesis. Suffice to say here that Agenda 21 is a 350-page document with 40 chapters that sets out in detail how sustainable development might be achieved at every level of government. The main aims of Agenda 21 are that sustainable design is in harmony with nature, with responsible use of resources, and that design considers the needs of both the current and future generations in a socially, environmentally and economically friendly manner (UNCED 1992; UNCSD 2012). 3.4.3 The Kyoto Protocol – 1997 The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement signed in Japan in 1997, but which did not take effect until 2005. The aim of the Protocol was to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the impact of climate change. The Protocol also contained agreements to sustainable development within its clauses. These included that any materials produced or used for construction should be energy efficient and sustainable, with minimal impact on the environment; that new and renewable forms of energy should be developed; that there should be improved management of the products of building demolition; and that there should be associated reductions in greenhouse gases in the transport sector. Around 192 countries are currently signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, though at present these do not include the USA and China, two countries with significant greenhouse gas emissions (UNFCCC 1998). Some of the key decisions of the Kyoto Protocol included the following.  Enhancement of energy efficiency in relevant sectors of the national economy  Protection and improvement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Kyoto Protocol  Promotion of sustainable forms of agriculture in light of climate change considerations 30 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements  Research into, and the promotion, development and increased use of, new and renewable forms of energy as well as research into carbon dioxide sequestration technologies  Progressive reduction or phasing out of market imperfections, fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions and subsidies in all greenhouse gas emitting sectors that run counter to the objective of the convention  Encouragement of appropriate reforms in relevant sectors aimed at promoting policies and measuring the limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol  Measures to limit and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol in the transport sector (UNFCCC 1998). In conclusion, the Kyoto Protocol demonstrates that there have been a series of decisions relating to sustainable construction that include to use energy more efficiently; to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in all areas of the construction sector, including in transportation and waste management; and to increase use of renewable forms of energy and carbon dioxide sequestration technologies (UNFCCC 1998). 3.4.4 The European Environment Agency (EEA) – 1994 The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an office of the European Union (EU) which became operational in 1994. The Agency provides independent information on the environment to its 33-member countries in the EU. The aim is assist those countries to make informed decisions about environmental issues when considering major construction and other projects, and for sustainable environmental policies to be integrated into economic and social policy (EEA 2016). Research has found that in the European Union, buildings and construction are responsible for around half of total energy use, with materials transport being largely responsible for the remaining component (Edwards 1999). The European Environment Agency (EEA) thus has sustainable construction as one of its major mandates, with related policies being established towards construction that has minimum environmental impact and maintains ecological diversity (EEA 2016). 31 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements EU environmental policy includes that pollution should be prevented at its source, and polluters should pay for environmental damage they cause; that environmental policy should be integrated with economic and social policy; that environmental effects of development should be taken into account in the technical planning and decision making stage; that environmental protection is a responsibility of the entire community; and that EU environmental policy should be harmonised with national policy (EEA 2016). The European Environment Agency describes sustainable construction as a process that effectively integrates low energy design with materials which have minimum environmental impact and maintain ecological diversity. Based on this policy, the main objects of sustainable construction are to minimise non-renewable resource consumption; to reuse and recycle construction materials or waste; to enhance the natural environment through product selection; to minimise waste and prevent pollution at building sites; and to use outputs from one process as inputs to others (e.g. energy from materials) (EAA 2016). 3.4.5 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – 1988 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body set up by the United Nations in 1988. It aims to provide an objective scientific perspective on the effects of climate change and its global economic impacts. A report by the IPCC in 2007 identified that global construction is responsible for 40 per cent of the world’s energy consumption, and produces one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The report also noted that most energy consumed in the construction sector was during use of a building (i.e. Stage Four, operation, of the building life cycle) at 80 to 90 per cent (Levine & Urge-Vorsatz 2007). The report proposes that energy consumption in both new and existing buildings could be cut by 30 to 50 per cent, and that this could be done in a cost-effective manner using existing technologies, with potential to reduce construction carbon emissions by around 5.6 Gt CO2 by 2030. However, achieving such reductions is going to require significant effort by the governments of the various countries of the United Nations (Levine & Urge-Vorsatz 2007). 32 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements The report concluded that the global construction sector has great potential to provide long-term, cost-effective reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. A significant portion of these savings could also be obtained in ways that reduce lifecycle costs, thus providing reductions in carbon emissions that have a net benefit rather than cost (Levine & Urge-Vorsatz 2007). 3.4.6 United Nations Environment Program, Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative – 2009 A report by the Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative within the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP SBCI 2009) reiterated several of the themes noted in the earlier publications of the various bodies involved in dealing with climate change. In particular, yet again there was identification of the fact that the global construction sector is one of the largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions, but that it also has the greatest potential for significant and cost-effective reductions in emissions through use of existing technologies. Such reductions have the potential to deliver both social and economic benefits to global society. However, emission reduction targets cannot be achieved without gains in energy efficiency in the building sector (UNEP SBCI 2009). 3.4.7 The Paris Agreement – 2015 In 2015, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) brokered an agreement in Paris between 196 countries related to climate change. The agreement included action to promote low greenhouse gas and climate-resilient development, but in a fashion that will not impact on global food production. The Paris Agreement of 2015 is a legally-binding framework for a global effort to reduce the impacts of climate change. Of significant importance is that China is and the USA2 were parties to the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2015). The Paris Agreement allows the signatory countries to determine their own national contributions to meeting the aims of the document, but such contributions are expected to be ambitious and progressive over time. A specific aim is to achieve netzero emissions in the second half of this century. This assumes profound changes to the economies of some countries, particularly those in the developed world. A non2 On 2 June 2017, the USA withdrew from the Paris agreement on climate change (ABC News 2017). 33 Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements legally binding part of the Agreement is for private and public entities to provide an annual US$100 billion to aid developing countries to meet their nationally determined targets (Hasham, Bourke & Cox 2015; UNFCCC 2015). Other highlights of the Paris agreement of interest to this study include that Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) countries can meet their targets by transferring ‘mitigation outcomes’ internationally, that is by sharing mitigation targets. Related to this, public and private organisations can support sustainable development projects that generate transferable emissions reductions (Hasham, Bourke & Cox 2015; UNFCCC 2015). The Paris Agreement thus provides a common framework for individual countries to consider their own capacities for reducing climate change. The Agreement has the potential to provide a basis for long-term international action on climate change, particularly as the technologies and alternative energy systems to do this become further developed and economically more viable (UNFCCC 2015). Emissions in 2005 were determined as the base point from which reductions would be measured. The Australian Federal Government has pledged to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030, a figure which provides justification for this present research whose outcomes have potential to assist in this process. The USA has pledged to reduce emissions by 41 per cent (but has since withdrawn from the agreement), and Canada by 30 percent. The European Union has pledged a reduction of 40 percent, but relative to their emission levels in 1990 (Hasham, Bourke & Cox 2015). Details of these targets are presented in Table 3.3. Table 3.3: Post-2020 emission reduction targets for major developed countries Country Change on base year Rate of reductions to achieve target 2005 2010-2020 Australia -26%-28% -0.8% USA -41% -1.4% EU -34% -0.4% United Kingdom -48% -1.6% Germany -46% -2.4% Source: The Climate Institute (cited in Hasham, Bourke & Cox 2015) 3 3 On 2 June 2017, the USA withdrew from the Paris agreement on climate change (ABC News 2017). 34 Post 2020 -1.6%/-1.9% -2.3% -2.6% -5.1% -2.6% Chapter Three Sustainable development and international agreements 3.5 Summary In the face of global environmental problems. existing construction practices are not sustainable, and it is necessary to rethink current methods and establish new building construction processes. The efficient use of natural resources (energy and construction materials), the prevention and reduction of the environmental impact of construction activities, and the protection of biodiversity must be major considerations in any move towards achieving sustainable construction practices. This chapter has considered an extended notion of sustainability suitable for use when a focus is taken on achieving sustainability in construction practices. The major findings from a range of international conferences and agreements have also been discussed, with common themes being identified as to how reduction in greenhouse gases and carbon emissions might be achieved. The main theme that informs this present research is that the construction sector is a major site of global energy use, but one where significant reductions in carbon emissions can be achieved in a costeffective manner using existing technologies. This is the case for the Australian construction sector, which has the greatest potential for significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as compared to other major emitting sectors in this country. The next chapter considers specific ways in which reduction in the carbon emissions of construction in Australia and elsewhere may be achieved. 35 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction CHAPTER FOUR EMBODIED ENERGY AND REDUCING CARBON EMISSIONS OF CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Overview One third of the world’s energy is used by industry to make products – the buildings, infrastructure, vehicles, capital equipment and household goods that sustain our lifestyles. Most of this energy is needed in the early stages of production to convert raw materials, such as iron ore or trees, into stock materials like steel plates or reels of paper (UK Indemand 2015). The key materials with which we create modern lifestyles – steel, cement, plastic, paper and aluminium in particular – are thus the main carriers of this ‘embodied energy’, and if we want to make a significant reduction in this industrial energy use, we need to reduce our demand for these materials. The purpose of this chapter is to present the concept of embodied energy in building materials, how this can be measured, and how embodied energy and carbon emissions might be reduced. Section 4.1 provides an overview to this chapter. Section 4.2 considers the embodied energy of building materials and their measurement. Section 4.3 identifies the carbon emissions within construction processes. Section 4.4 considers how embodied energy can be converted to its equivalent in carbon emission. Section 4.5 discusses various techniques that can reduce the carbon emissions from construction. Section 4.6 identifies barriers that exist to emissions reduction in construction. Finally, Section 4.7 presents a summary of this chapter’s content and links to the next chapter. 4.2 The Embodied energy of building materials Embodied energy represents the energy consumed by all processes associated with the production of a building, from the mining and processing of natural resources, to manufacturing transport and product delivery (Milne & Reardon 2014). Embodied energy can be broken down into direct and indirect energies. Direct embodied energy relates to the energy involved in transportation of construction materials, and then assembling those materials on site. Indirect embodied energy relates to the energy put ‘into’ the component itself, in terms of extracting it from the ground, then the energy consumed in its processing and manufacturing, together with generated 36 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction carbon emissions (Bull 2012). It also includes any energy used to transport subcomponents or equipment in any of these stages. Embodied energy varies for any given material depending upon the efficiency of the production processes. If the source of any given material and the performance of the company producing the material are known, it is possible to establish specific embodied energy and greenhouse emission factors for particular materials, considering exact fuel type, mining place, transportation and delivery consumed energy, and generated carbon emissions. For example, a material manufactured and used in Brisbane has a different embodied energy if the same material is transported by road to Perth. The quantification of embodied energy and associated greenhouse gas emissions is thus related to process location and is company specific. Embodied energy and carbon emissions can vary from country to country – for example, embodied energy of steel in Australia is 34 MJ/kg (Lawson 2006); in Canada it is 32 MJ/kg (Canadian Architects 2015); and in the US is 40 MJ/kg (Jong & Rigdon 1998). In this regard, for this research, specifications of materials used in Australia, the UK, the US and Canada is provided together with their relevant carbon emissions. In the case where the source of a material is known, the company can be contacted to provide the information required to calculate accurate embodied energy and carbon emissions for that building material or element. However, the embodied energy of the materials used in Australian construction systems which provide the basis for this study (Table 4.1) have been converted to carbon emissions based on the Australian Government’s global average equation of 0.098 kg CO2 eq = 1 MJ (CSIRO 2014). 4.2.1 Embodied energy and operational energy It was thought until recently that the embodied energy content of a building was small compared to the energy used in operating the building over its life. Most effort, therefore, was put into reducing operating energy by improving the energy efficiency of the building envelope. However, this is not always the case. For example, research on office construction shows that embodied energy can approach 37 years of operational energy (Moncaster 2007). Embodied energy can therefore be the 37 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction equivalent of many years of operational energy. Research by CSIRO has also found that the average house contains about 1,000GJ of energy embodied in the materials used in its construction. This is equivalent to about 15 years of normal operational energy use. For a house that lasts 100 years, this is over 10 per cent of the energy used in its life (Milne & Reardon 2014). 4.2.2 Types of embodied energy and methods of calculation As already noted, embodied energy includes the energy consumed in mining and processing of natural resources, and then in the manufacture, transport and product delivery. Final energy calculation also depends on where boundaries are drawn in the assessment process. For example, embodied energy will vary if all possible energy use is included – for example, in transporting the materials and workers to the building site; in factory and office lighting; the energy used for the machines that make the materials; and the energy used for urban infrastructure (roads, drains, water and energy supply). Based on these considerations, there are two types of embodied energy which can be considered – the gross energy requirement (GER); and the process energy requirement (PER). Gross energy requirement (GER) is a measure of the true embodied energy of a material, which would ideally include all the embodied energy used, directly and indirectly. However, measurement of GER is usually impractical. Process energy requirement (PER) is a measure of the energy usage that is directly related to manufacture of the material. This is simpler to quantify. Consequently, most figures quoted for embodied energy are based on the PER. This would include the energy used in transporting the raw materials to the factory, but not the energy used to transport the final building materials and elements to the construction site. PER has been used in this study, and accounts for 50 to 80 per cent of GER. Even within this narrower definition, arriving at a single figure for a material is impractical as it depends on the efficiency of the manufacturing process; the fuels used in the manufacture of the materials; the distance materials are transported; and the amount of recycled product used (Milne & Reardon 2014). Each of these factors varies according to product, process, manufacturer and application. They also vary 38 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction depending on how the embodied energy has been calculated. Considering these factors, any improvement in the manufacturing and processing stages can cause variation in the embodied energy figures. Embodied energy calculation can thus vary based on several factors. As a result, figures quoted for embodied energy are broad guidelines only. For example, material manufactured and used in Melbourne has a different embodied energy if the same material is transported by road to Darwin. Thus, one way to reduce relative embodied energy is to use local materials. Tables 4.1 provides the embodied energies of common building materials in Australian construction systems; these are based on embodied energies of building materials used in British and Canadian construction systems (further detail on these is provided in Appendix A). Australian standard/basic carbon emissions are calculated using the Australian government’s global average of 0.098 kg CO2 eq = 1 MJ (CSIRO 2014), and are presented in column three of Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Embodied energy and carbon emissions of common Australian building materials Australian Building Materials Kiln dried sawn softwood Standard/Basic Embodied Energy MJ/kg 3.4 Standard/ Basic Carbon Emissions Kg/MJ 0.333 Kiln dried sawn hardwood 2.0 0.196 Air dried sawn hardwood 0.5 0.049 Hardboard 24.2 2.372 Plywood 10.4 1.019 Stabilized earth 0.7 0.069 Plasterboard 4.4 0.431 Fibre cement 4.8 Cement 5.6, 5.4 0.470 1 0.549, 0.821 In situ concrete 1.9 0.186 Precast steam-cured concrete 2.0 0.196 Precast tilt-up concrete 1.9 0.186 Clay bricks 2.5 0.245 Concrete blocks 1.5 0.147 Aluminium 170 16.660 Galvanized steel 38 3.724 Steel 34 1 AU 3.33, AU 21 Source: Lawson 1996; 20061; Sattary & Cole 2012. 39 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction Embodied energy values for materials used in Canadian construction systems have been studied for the past several decades by architectural researchers interested in the relationship between building materials and their environmental impacts. These include the embodied energy of building materials based on units of weight (MJ/kg) and volume (MJ/m3) (Canadian Architects 2015). These are further detailed in Appendix A. Table 4.2 presents embodied energy and relevant carbon emission values from data within the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (2011) database, provided by the Department of Mechanical Engineering in the University of Bath in the United Kingdom. Table 4.2: Embodied energy and carbon emissions of common UK building materials Standard/Basic Embodied Standard/ Basic Carbon United Kingdom common building Energy MJ/kg Emissions Kg/MJ materials Aggregate 0.083 0.0048 Concrete (1:1.5:3) 1.11 0.159 Bricks (common) 3 0.24 Concrete block (Medium density) 0.67 0.073 Aerated block 3.5 0.3 Limestone block 0.85 Cement mortar (1:3) 1.33 0.208 Cement 1.01 Steel (general, av. recycled content) 20.1 1.37 Steel 2.7 Stainless steel 56.7 6.15 Timber (general, excludes sequestration) 8.5 0.46 Timber 0.301 Glass fibre insulation (glass wool) 28 1.35 Expanded Polystyrene insulation 88.6 2.55 Polyurethane insulation (rigid foam) 101.5 3.48 Wool (recycled) insulation 20.9 Slate 0.1–1.0 0.006–0.058 Clay tile 6.5 0.45 Aluminium (general & incl 33% recycled) 155 8.24 Aluminium 11.51 Source: Inventory of Carbon & Energy (2011); Wilson (2014) (figures with superscript 1 are from the latter source). Table 4.3 presents Australian, UK and Canadian PER data (further detailed in Appendix A) relating to building materials and relevant carbon emissions. These are for items produced from ‘raw material and virgin natural resources’ and ‘recycled 40 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction materials and recycled content’. Some of these embodied energy figures have been used in the carbon emissions reduction calculations of the case studies in Chapter Six of this research. Table 4.3: Embodied energy and carbon emissions of building materials derived from ‘raw material and virgin natural resources’ and ‘recycled materials and recycled content’ Building Materials in AU, UK and Canada Aggregate Standard/Basic Embodied Energy MJ/kg Standard/Basic Embodied Energy MJ/kg Standard/ Basic Carbon Emissions per Kg/MJ From raw materials & virgin natural resources From recycled materials and recycled content CA 0.0092 AU, CA 0.1, UK 0.083 UK 0.00481 3.4 0.333 Kiln dried sawn softwood Kiln dried sawn 2.0 hardwood Particleboard 8.0 Plywood 10.4 Stabilized earth 0.7 Gypsum plaster 2.9 Plasterboard 4.4 Fibre cement 4.8 Cement 5.6 In situ concrete 1.9 Precast steam-cured 2.0 concrete Precast tilt-up concrete 1.9 Clay bricks AU 2.5, UK 3 Concrete blocks AU 1.5, UK 0.67 Polyethylene US 98, AU 103 Thermal insulation Polypropylene expanded 117 Aluminium US 196, AU 170, AU 1913 Steel AU 323, US40, CA32 Steel (general - average recycled content) Steel (section - average recycled content) Steel (pipe-average recycled content) Galvanized steel Stainless steel Standard/ Basic Carbon Emissions per Kg/MJ 0.196 0.784 1.019 0.069 0.284 0.431 0.470 0.549 0.186 0.196 0.186 AU 0.245, UK 0.24 AU 0.147, UK 0.073 US 56, AU 0.5851 AU 16.660, UK 11.54 UK2.74 US 27, AU 8.1, AU8.13, UK8.25 (33% recycled) CA 8.1, UK 155, 3 AU 10.1 , US 18, CA0.872 CA8.9 AU 323, US40, CA32 UK 20.7, 20.501 UK 1.37 AU 323, US40, CA32 UK 21.5 UK 1.42 AU 323, US40, CA32 UK 19.8 UK 1.37 AU38 UK 56.7 3.724 UK 6.15 AU 10.1 Sources: Australian data – Lawson 1996, 2006; O'Halloran, Fisher & Rab 2008; US data – Jong & Rigdon, 1998; Canadian data – Canadian Architects 2015 | Superscripted sources: 1. Greenspec 2015; 2. Canadian Architects 2015; 3. O'Halloran et al 2008; 4. Institution of Civil Engineers 2012 Lawson (1996) studied the embodied energies of Australian Floor, Wall and Roof construction systems. The embodied energy figures are converted using the Australian global average as previously described, and presented in column three of Tables 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6. These figures have been used in the case studies described in Chapter Six. 41 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction Table 4.4: Embodied energy and carbon emissions in Australian Floor construction systems Basic Embodied Basic Carbon Australian Floor construction systems Energy MJ/m2 Emissions Kg/m2 a. Elevated Timber Floor (lowest level) 293 28.7 b. Elevated Timber Floor (upper level) 147 14.4 c. 110 mm Concrete Slab on ground 645 63.21 d. 125mm Elevated Concrete Slab (temporary framework) 750 73.5 e. 110mm Elevated Concrete Slab (permanent framework) 665 65.17 f. 200mm Precast Concrete Tee Beam/Infill flooring 602 59 g. 200mm Hollow Core Precast Concrete flooring 908 88.98 Source: From Lawson (1996) and the case study analyses (Chapter Seven) Table 4.5: Embodied energy and carbon emissions in Australian Wall construction systems Basic Embodied Basic Carbon Australian Wall construction systems Energy MJ/m2 Emissions Kg/m2 a. Timber Frame, Single Skin Timber Wall 151 14.8 b. Timber Frame, Timber Weatherboard Wall 188 18.4 c. Timber Frame, Reconstituted Timber W/board Wall 377 36.9 d. Timber Frame, Fibre Cement Weatherboard Wall 169 16.6 e. Timber Frame, Steel Clad Wall 336 32.9 f. Steel Frame, Steel Clad Wall 425 41.7 g. Timber Frame, Aluminium Weatherboard Wall 403 39.5 h. Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 561 63.8 i. Steel Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 650 63.7 j. Timber Frame, Concrete Block Veneer Wall 361 35.4 k. Steel Frame, Concrete Block Veneer Wall 453 44.4 l. Steel Frame, timber weatherboard Wall 238 23.3 m. Cavity Clay Brick Wall 860 84.3 n. Cavity Concrete Block Wall 465 45.6 o. Single Skin Stabilised Rammed Earth Wall 405 39.7 p. Single Skin autoclave Aerated Concrete Block wall 440 43.1 q. Single Skin Cored Concrete Block Wall 317 31.1 r. Steel Frame, Compressed Fibre Cement Clad Wall 385 37.7 s. Hollow-Core Precast Concrete Wall 729 71.4 t. Tilt-up Precast Concrete Wall 818 80.1 u. Porcelain-Enamelled Steel Curtain Wall 865 84.8 v. Glass Curtain Wall 770 75.5 w. Steel Faced Sandwich Panel Wall 1087 106.5 x. Aluminium Curtain Wall 935 91.6 Source: From Lawson (1996) and the case study analyses (Chapter Seven) Table 4.6: Embodied energy and carbon emissions in Australian Roof construction systems Basic Embodied Basic Carbon Australian Roof construction systems Energy MJ/m2 Emissions Kg/m2 a. Timber Frame, Timber Shingle Roof 151 14.8 b. Timber Frame, Fiber Cement Shingle Roof 291 28.5 c. Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 330 32.3 d. Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 483 47.3 e. Timber Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 240 23.5 f. Steel Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 450 44.1 g. Timber Frame, Terracotta Tile Roof 271 26.6 h. Timber Frame, Synthetic Rubber Membrane Roof 386 37.8 i. Concrete Slab, Synthetic Rubber Membrane Roof 1050 102.9 j. Steel Frame, Fibre Cement Sheet Roof 337 33 k. Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof (commercial) 401 39.3 Source: From Lawson (1996) and the case study analyses (Chapter Seven) 42 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction 4.2.3 Input-Output embodied energy and hybrid methods Input-Output embodied energy analysis is the main method used today, and originates from the input-output model described in Leontief (1995). This I-O analysis method was adapted for embodied energy to describe ecosystem energy flows. This adaptation tabulated the total direct and indirect energy requirements (the energy intensity) for each output made by the system. The total amount of energies, direct and indirect, for the entire amount of production was called the Input-Output embodied energy (Leontief 1995). The I-O method calculates data obtained from industrial manufacturing processes. The Process Energy Requirement (PER) was the focus, even though this was often considered in the context of the Gross Energy Requirement (GER) – and earlier research had found that the PER was usually only 50 to 80 per cent of the GER. However, if rough comparisons of the embodied energy of different materials were required to assist designers to decide between high embodied energy and low embodied energy materials, then the I-O method gave easily comprehensible information. Nevertheless, the approach was clearly incomplete – for example, energy used in transport, a significant consideration as building materials are often heavy or bulky, was often omitted. Today, there is an increasing need for more accurate and comprehensive analysis of embodied energy, rather than mere relativities. The input-output approach, based on gross national economic data, was initially seen as a way of achieving the completeness that the process approach lacked. However, the modelling of supply and demand, then its translation into energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions, involves quite sophisticated mathematics, making the method difficult to understand. This has led to development of a hybrid input-output method that enables any amount of industry data to be incorporated within a consistent input-output model. The Centre for Design at RMIT believes the hybrid input-output method is now the preferred technique of assessing embodied energy (Lawson 2006). Tables 4.7 and 4.8 present a comparison of the embodied energy of some common Australian building materials calculated using the PER approach and the hybrid input-output approach. The I-O figures for Australian building materials are obtained 43 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction from Lawson (2006) where he used I-O calculations rather than PER calculations used in his earlier 1996 paper. The carbon emissions are calculated based on the Australian government’s global average. The higher accuracy of the I-O approach is indicated by the consistently higher figures, which incorporate upstream requirements for goods and services. For example, in the production of cement, limestone, shale and probably coal have to be mined, processed and transported to the cement works, and this is taken into account in I-O calculations. This present research and the developed model is based on calculations of embodied energy using process energy requirements (PER). However, calculations using the input-output embodied energy method can also be applied within the research model. Future research using Building Information Modelling (BIM) will make it easier to replace PER with I-O embodied energies Table 4.7: Comparison of PER and hybrid I-O methods for embodied energy and carbon emissions of common building materials PER Hybrid Input-Output Australian Building Materials Embodied Carbon Emissions Embodied Carbon Emissions Energy MJ/kg Kg/MJ Energy MJ/kg Kg/MJ Organic Kiln dried sawn hardwood 2 0.196 25.1 2.46 Kiln dried sawn softwood 3.4 0.333 19.9 1.95 Plastic General 90 8.82 163.4 16.01 Cement 5.6 0.549 16.4 1.607 Concrete 20MPa (no reo) 1.7 1.167 4.1 0.401 Aerated Concrete 3.6 0.353 4.0 0.392 Clay Brick 2.5 0.245 2.7 0.265 Glass 12.7 1.245 160.0 15.68 Aluminium 170.0 16.66 252.6 24.75 Cooper 100.0 9.8 378.9 37.1 34.0 3.332 85.3 8.36 115.0 11.27 445.2 43.43 Ceramics Metals Structural Steel Stainless Steel Source: Lawson (1996; 2006). 44 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction Table 4.8: Comparison of PER and hybrid I-O methods for some typical residential wall, floor and roof systems PER Hybrid Input-Output Australian Floor, Wall and Roof Embodied Carbon Embodied Carbon construction systems Energy Emissions Energy Emissions MJ/kg Kg/MJ MJ/kg Kg/MJ Floor 293 28.71 1289 126.32 Elevated timber floor (lowest level) 147 14.41 873 85.55 Elevated timber floor (upper level) 645 63.21 960 94.08 110 mm concrete slab on ground 110 mm elevated concrete slab 665 65.17 1617 158.47 (permanent framework) Wall Timber frame, timber weatherboard, 188 18.42 999 97.90 plasterboard lined wall Single skin AAC block, plasterboard 472 46.26 805 7.73 lined wall Timber frame, clay brick veneer, 561 54.98 1207 118.29 plasterboard lined wall Steel frame, clay brick veneer, 604 59.19 968 94.86 plasterboard lined wall Double clay brick, plasterboard lined 906 88.79 1243 121.81 wall Roof Timber frame, concrete tile roof, 251 24.6 1269 124.36 plasterboard ceiling Timber frame, terracotta tile roof, 271 26.56 2200 215.6 plasterboard ceiling Timber frame, steel sheet roof, 330 32.34 1302 127.6 plasterboard ceiling Steel frame, steel sheet roof, 483 47.33 1471 144.16 plasterboard ceiling Source: Crawford and Treloar (2004); Lawson (1996; 2006). 4.2.4 Guidelines for reducing embodied energy and carbon emissions Lightweight construction materials such as timber frames are usually lower in embodied energy than heavyweight construction materials. This may not be the case if large amounts of light but high energy materials such as steel or aluminium are used. There are many situations where a lightweight building is the most appropriate and may result in the lower lifecycle energy use (i.e. in hot, humid climates, sloping or shaded sites, or sensitive landscapes) (Milne & Reardon 2014). In climates with greater heating and cooling requirements, and significant day/night temperature variations, embodied energy in a high level of well insulated thermal mass can significantly offset the energy used for heating and cooling. However, there is little benefit in building a house with high embodied energy in the thermal mass or 45 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction other elements of the envelope in areas where heating and cooling requirements are minimal, or where other passive design principles are not applied. Each design should select the best combination for its application based on climate, transport distances, and availability of materials and budget, balanced against known embodied energy content (Milne & Reardon 2014). The following is a summary of guidelines, tips and techniques for reducing embodied energy.  Reduce building elements with the highest impact on embodied energy – for example, replacing the high embodied energy Portland cement component of concrete with an appropriate lower embodied energy alternative will reduce the embodied energy of concrete. As concrete is such a common building material, such energy savings may be significant (Greenspec 2015).  Select low embodied energy construction materials (which may include materials with a high recycled content), preferably based on supplier-specific data (Greenspec 2015).  Give preference to materials manufactured using renewable energy sources (Greenspec 2015).  Select materials that can be reused or recycled easily at the end of their lives using existing recycling systems (Greenspec 2015), and ensure materials from demolition of existing buildings, and construction wastes, are reused or recycled (Milne & Reardon 2014).  Use locally sourced materials (including materials salvaged on site) to reduce transport (Milne & Reardon 2014).  Reduce material use by appropriate design, and increase the resource efficiency of materials and elements (Milne & Reardon 2014). Some very energy intensive finishes, such as paints, often have high wastage levels (Lawson 2006). The advice, guidelines and tips provided here may result in substantial reductions in embodied energy and related carbon emissions. In respect to reuse and recycling of building materials, this can save up 95 per cent of embodied energy that would otherwise be lost (Milne & Reardon 2014). 46 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction 4.3 Carbon emissions of the construction process In the construction industry, designers and other interested parties must be aware that carbon dioxide can be emitted through a variety of mechanisms other than by simply burning fossil fuels to provide a power supply to a building. For example, carbon emissions result from burning fossil fuels in transporting construction workers and materials in both pre-construction and construction stages. Once all contributing factors to embodied energy and generated carbon emissions have been identified, the total embodied energy and relevant carbon emissions can be calculated (UK Indemand 2015). There are two types of carbon emissions that need to be considered in construction: the operational carbon and the embodied carbon. Operational carbon is the carbon dioxide released over the lifetime use of a building, including that generated by heating, cooling, lighting, and so on. Embodied carbon refers to the carbon dioxide released from materials extraction, transport, manufacturing, and related activities, including end of life emissions (Sustain 2014; Wynn 2012). Embodied energy has a significant impact on a building’s (embodied) carbon emissions, and this proportion has been steadily increasing over recent decades as technology has developed and operational energy use has reduced. In addition, the recurring embodied energy also needs to be considered, this being defined as the energy required for maintenance, refurbishment and replacement of components during the lifetime of the building, a process which also releases (operational) carbon. The ratio of embodied carbon to operational carbon has grown to approximately 40:60 as shown in Table 4.9 (Bull 2012). Table 4.9: The carbon life cycle of a typical building Initial material investment Refurbishment and Deconstruction Building in use Operation (increased 1-2 years construction Retrofit 1-2 Years 0-6 months 30 years efficiency and fabric Construction operation improvements) 15-20 Years 21% 8.5% 38% Total Embodied Carbon 8.5% 45% 17% 62% Total Operational Carbon Source: Bull (2012) Currently embodied carbon can be equivalent to as much as 37 years of operational carbon (Moncaster 2007). This figure will increase as operational carbon is decreased with implementation of zero carbon operational strategies (Centre for 47 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction Sustainable Development 2014). Under such circumstances, the impact of the building sector on the environment could be reduced significantly by taking into account bioclimatic design principles. Carbon emissions generated by a specific material or construction element can vary considerably – for example, if the energy and electricity used for the processes were generated by hydro or coal generation, with a ratio of around 1/250 (Table 4.10). The type of energy resources used in production and construction processes can thus play a major role in carbon emissions reduction, a factor considered in the bioclimatic design principles of the developed model. Table 4.10: The carbon intensity of electricity generation (all figures in g co2eq/kwh) Hydro Ocean Wind Nuclear 4 8 12 16 Biomass Solar CSP Geothermal Solar PV Natural Gas 18 22 45 48 469 Oil Coal 840 1001 Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2011); Wilson 2014 As Table 4.10 shows, alternatives to fossil fuels are many and varied, ranging from solar energy in its various forms, to wind, geothermal, natural gas, nuclear fission and so on. It is sometimes suggested that nuclear energy is not associated with the production of greenhouse gases. This is untrue. The energy associated with mining, transport of uranium, and nuclear waste generates substantial quantities of greenhouse gases. Additionally, when the nuclear fuel cycle is examined, it is clear that considerable amounts of other potential pollutants are produced at various stages. For example, while a 1000MW nuclear power plant consumes only 36 tonnes of processed and enriched uranium fuel, this necessitates the mining of 85.5x10³ tonnes of ore which produces toxic tailings containing arsenic, cadmium, and mercury as well as radionuclides (Masters 1991). 4.4 Converting embodied energy to carbon emission (CO2) equivalent The term ‘carbon’ is frequently used as shorthand for either carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e), which includes both CO2 and other gases with significant global warming potential, meaning that they tend to trap heat in our atmosphere. Once each greenhouse gas is on the same carbon-equivalent scale, emissions for a specific material can be added up to get its total embodied CO2-e. A 48 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction lot of the embodied carbon of a product or building comes from energy consumption (embodied energy), but not all of it. The embodied carbon of a product usually includes CO2-e emitted from the extraction of raw materials through to the final manufacture of the product, sometimes referred to as ‘cradle-to-gate’. The embodied carbon of new construction includes this, plus transport and installation of all products and materials that make up the building. Some measures (gross energy requirement, input-output and hybrid method) include emissions from construction activity, such as equipment use, transportation of workers to and from the job site, and even land disturbance in construction (which causes loss of carbon stored in healthy soils). As with the more comprehensive lifecycle analysis, the definition of what is and is not included in the calculation has to be consistent to be useful. For building products, work is ongoing in defining these boundaries through product category rules, which clearly explain the types of embodied energy used. An increasing proportion of the total energy used and carbon emissions for highperformance buildings come from its materials and products. This is not only because less energy is used in operation, but also because buildings may be using more carbon-intensive materials to achieve lower energy use. To minimise climate change, the goal is to reduce the total quantity of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere, and reducing the embodied carbon of building materials has an important role (Building Green 2014). The embodied energy of a building or building material is the simple and most convenient measure of its environmental impact. The greater the embodied energy, the greater are its carbon emissions and environmental impacts. Another reason to address embodied carbon is that reductions in carbon emissions of materials have an immediate benefit, whereas the carbon reductions through operations accrue over a long period of time. By taking embodied carbon into account, design is for carbon emissions reduction. 49 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction Embodied energy, like operational energy, can be directly related to the generation of greenhouse gases such as CO2, although energy derived from different fossil fuel sources will vary in its associated CO2 emissions. On average, approximately 0.1 tonnes of CO2 are produced per gigajoule of embodied energy (Lawson 2006). Typical embodied energy units used are MJ/kg (megajoules of energy needed to make a kilogram of product), and tCO2/kg (tonnes of carbon dioxide created by the energy needed to make a kilogram of product). Converting MJ to tCO2 is not straightforward because different types of energy (oil, wind, solar, nuclear, and so on) emit different amounts of carbon dioxide, so the actual amount of carbon dioxide emitted when a product is made will be dependent on the type of energy used in the manufacturing process. For example, the Australian Government gives a global average of 0.098 tCO2 = 1 GJ. This is the same as 1 MJ = 0.098 kg CO2 = 98 g CO2, or 1 kg CO2 = 10.204 MJ (CSIRO 2014). 4.5 Review of techniques to reduce construction carbon emissions This section discusses potential ways in which carbon emission reductions can be achieved in the construction process. There are several illustrative examples given which are identified from the six case studies which are considered in this research. 4.5.1 Reuse and recycling of construction materials The ‘throw-away’ mentality of the past needs to change in order to preserve our environment. One important facet relating to this is that reusability of building materials and elements must be implemented in global construction activities. Reusability is often misinterpreted for recycling. Recycling refers to taking the construction materials, breaking them down into their raw materials, and creating new construction products. Reuse refers to extending the life of a building material or element (Waste Watch 2004). Additionally, reuse of construction materials and elements does not require more energy like recycling, because it relies on the embodied energy present within the materials (Danciu 2012). Construction materials have a limited life cycle before they become waste. Reuse thus extends the lifespan of a construction product. This means that through reuse, materials can last longer and pollution and waste can be reduced. Reusability has 50 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction become globally prominent, and more integrated into the policies and procedures of governments, industries, and communities through advances in technology and globalisation (World Federation of Engineering Organizations 2011). The common theme in any reusability project is to reduce waste, reduce emissions, and decrease the environmental impact of construction (World Federation of Engineering Organization 2011). In fact, up to 80 per cent of construction waste is actually made up of discarded materials which are ideal for re-use or recycling, and which represent significant potential for use in this market. This market is already developed in the United States, Germany, Britain and some European countries, but has not yet to be fully developed in Australia (UN Environmental Protection Agency UNEPA 2015). Most of the resources used in house construction are suitable for reuse or recycling. Table 4.11 identifies materials suitable for recycling or reuse in a typical Australian house. Table 4.11: Higher value materials typically recovered in house deconstruction Material Comments Bricks and concrete Almost all bricks and concrete – the heaviest building materials – can be recycled, making significant savings on landfill fees. Terracotta tiles Depending on their condition, terracotta tiles can be either sold for re-use or collected free for recycling. Like bricks and concrete, landfill fees for disposal of heavy tiles can be easily avoided. Wood products (lumber, Up to 75 per cent of wood products can be re-used or recycled. timber and floorboards) Good quality fixtures and Easily accessible items of value can be resold. fittings Source: Environment Protection Authority NSW (EPA 2015). Of the total building-related materials generated during construction and demolition, the United Nations Environmental Protection Agency (UNEPA) estimates that only 40 per cent are reused, recycled, or sent to waste-to-energy facilities; the remaining 60 per cent are sent to landfill (UNEPA 2015). Reuse and recycling of building materials commonly saves about 95 per cent of embodied energy that would otherwise be wasted (Milne & Reardon 2014). There is thus great potential to reduce carbon emissions through recycling and reuse of construction materials, as will be considered in the following sections of this chapter. 51 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction 4.5.2 Reduce materials use in design The Green Building Council of Australia aims to work with customers and design consultants in the design and tender stage to reduce the tons of steel and other resources used in projects through design efficiency. Both environmental improvement and project cost savings are the result. (Green Building Council of Australia GBCA 2014a). As an example of reduced materials in design, the London Olympics stadium (Figure 4.1) was constructed using only one tenth of the steel required to build Beijing ‘Bird's Nest’ stadium. Additionally, the amount of carbon output of the stadium is only an eighth of the Beijing stadium (Cable News Network 2012; Craven, 2012). On a similar note, aluminium in the roofs of the London Aquatics Centre and the velodrome has a high percentage of recycled content; and leftover gas pipes make up the Olympic Stadium’s ring beam, reducing the need for new steel to be produced (Inventory of Carbon & Energy 2011). Calculating the reduction of carbon emissions achieved in the London Olympic Stadium through the decreased materials in design as follows – the basic carbon emissions level of 39.3 Kgs CO2/m2 was reduced to 8.02 Kgs CO2/m2. There was thus a 79.6 per cent reduction in released carbon emissions from the London Olympic stadium. Figure 4.1: London Olympic Stadium Source: London attractions information (2016) 4.5.3 Use of appropriate construction materials There is significant potential for improving resource efficiency within the construction industry by using construction materials and elements with a high recycling and ‘complete reuse’ potential. On a much larger scale, complete steel buildings can be reused. An example is the British Pavilion at the Seville Expo in 1993 (Figure 4.2). This innovative, energy efficient steel building was designed to be 52 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction reused after the Expo (Steel Construction Information 2014) in fact it was designed for deconstruction and use elsewhere. Figure 4.2: British Pavilion, Seville Expo 93 Source: Steel Construction Information (2014) To reduce environmental impact, a system is needed that facilitates reuse through a range of mechanisms including – a reuse management model; careful demolition; establishment of storage sites; maintenance of a stock of reusable members; creation of performance evaluation and fabrication procedures for reusable members (Frangopol 2011). A study done by Aye et al. (2012) demonstrated that use of a prefabricated steel system produces significant reductions in the consumption of raw materials of up to 50.7 per cent by weight. A further benefit of a prefabricated system is that a significant portion of the structure can be reused at the end of the building’s life. This may result in a significant reduction in waste being sent to landfill, and reduced requirements for additional new materials. However, the energy embodied in the prefabricated steel buildings was up to 50 per cent greater than that for concrete buildings. This was offset by the fact that at the end of the building's useful life, up to 81.3 per cent of the embodied energy of the initial steel building can be saved by reuse of the main steel structures of the prefabricated modules and other components in further construction (Aye et al. 2012). 53 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction 4.5.4 Reuse of building elements and building spaces In the last decade, reusability has become a rising global trend and countries have been actively pursuing policies of reusability to prolong the use of construction materials and other items of what was once ‘waste’. The common theme in any reusability project is to reduce waste, reduce emissions, and decrease the environmental impact of construction (World Federation of Engineering Organizations 2011). New technologies for demolishing buildings also contribute to reducing waste because most building elements can be reused in the deconstruction materials market (Architecture & Engineering 2015). This market is already developed in the United States, Germany, Britain and some European countries, but has not yet to be fully developed in Australia (UNEPA 2015). Reuse and recycling of structural building elements can play a significant role in reducing the depletion of natural resources, not only through compliance with new standards, but also by minimising costs through efficient use of resources, solving problems interactively within design teams, having the knowledge and skills to assess and adapt existing buildings, and bringing an open-minded and innovative approach to design (Steel Construction Information 2014). Where a building has been designed with deconstruction in mind, much of the building material and elements can be reused. An example is provided in family housing units in Berlin which reused the complete walls, floor plates and ceilings from a demolished communist-era 11-storey tower block (Figure 4.3). The only significant energy costs arose from the transportation of the five-tonne panels and the use of a portable crane to lift them into place on site. For the residential project, the demolition firm provided the panels free of charge, which saved them the disposal cost and the architects the materials cost (CCAA 2015). Another German example is where the prefabricated concrete walls of Stalin-era apartment buildings were upcycled into two-story villas (Figure 4.4). After deconstruction, the panels were resized or taken as designed after stripping the wallpaper (High Concrete Group 2014). 54 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction Figure 4.3: Upcycled prefabricated concrete walls – the prefabricated concrete walls of an eleven-story Stalin-era apartment buildings were upcycled into two-story villas Source: High Concrete Group (2014). Figure 4.4: Reused prefabricated concrete walls – designing future buildings for deconstruction is vital for facilitating higher levels of reclamation and re-use. Source: High Concrete Group (2014). The basic carbon emission of a square metre tilt-up precast concrete wall is 80.16 kg CO2/m2 – which was decreased to 16.26 kg CO2 / m2 by deconstructing and downsizing the prefabricated concrete walls of these Stalin-era apartment buildings. Thus, a potential reduction of 79.72 per cent in possible carbon emissions from the two-story precast concrete walls was achieved. Additionally, this program also saved 14.7 million tonnes of waste from ending up in landfill (Fischer 2006; Adaptivereuse 2015). Research on residential case studies has shown that costs for salvaged materials are 20 to 50 per cent less than the cost of new materials. Economic benefits are mainly from salvaged materials, but also include lower landfill fees, and less future cost for replacement of materials. The cost of deconstruction was also 37 per cent lower than for demolition (Kernan et al. 2001). According to Morgan and Stevenson (2005), economic benefits of deconstruction include increased flexible use and adaptation of property at minimal future cost; maximized value of building elements; reduced quantity of materials going to landfill; and reduced risk of financial penalties in the future through easily 55 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction replaceable building elements. Deconstruction and design for deconstruction can redirect waste back into the building life cycle, thus conserving resources, energy and landfill space, as well as providing other associated environmental, economic and social benefits (Bales 2008). 4.5.5 Recycling and reuse of steel from recycled content It is estimated that the construction industry consumes some 420mt of materials annually, and generates some 90mt of construction, demolition and excavation waste, of which 25mt ends up in landfill. A significant proportion of this are waste steel products. In construction, most steel products are large, and can be easily captured at the end of a building’s life. Capture rates are on average 96 per cent (Steel Construction Information 2014) (Figure 4.5). Figure 4.5: Current end-of-life outcomes for concrete, timber and steel Resource: (Steel Construction Information 2014) The primary method used in the production of structural steel shapes and bars is the electric arc furnace, which uses 95 to 100 per cent old steel to make new steel. In this process, producers of structural steel are able to achieve up to 97.5 per cent recycled content for beams and plates, 65 per cent for reinforcing bars, and 66 per cent for steel decks. Total recycled content varies from mill to mill. Steel for products such as soup cans, pails, drums and automotive fenders is produced using the basic oxygen furnace process which uses 25 to 35 per cent old steel to make new products (Kang & Kren 2007). 56 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction 4.5.6 Reuse of structural steel Steel buildings and steel construction products are generally deconstructable and reusable. This potential is illustrated by the large number of temporary works systems that use steel components, e.g. scaffolding, formwork, sheet piles, and so on. Provided that attention is paid to eventual deconstruction at the design stage, there is no reason why nearly all of the steel building elements should not be regarded as a vast ‘warehouse of parts’ for future use in new applications. Research carried out by the Steel Construction Institute (SCI) has estimated that there is around 100 million tonnes of steel in buildings and infrastructure in the UK. This stock of steel is an important and valuable source for materials reuse, and there is research currently being conducted to identify how this can be done in the most effective fashion (Steel Construction Information 2014). Figure 4.6: Steel elements from demolition in Toowong, Australia Source: Author (2015). Figure 4.7: Materials from house demolition in Australia Source: EPA (2015). Figure 4.8: Floating shipping container apartments in Denmark Source: Stella (2016). Figures 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 illustrate examples of sources and uses of steel elements and products that can be reused at both the product and the building level. One innovative example is the use of old shipping containers to assist in solving the student housing shortage in Denmark (Stella 2016). Many industries commonly reuse steel components. Steel construction products are often reusable including steel piles (sheet and bearing piles); steel structural components including hollow sections; and light gauge steel products such as purlins and rails (Steel Construction Information 2014). Structural steel reuse can occur either on an individual element level, for example in the reuse of steel beams (e.g. in the BedZED project [Bioregional n.d.]), or on a component level, (e.g. a steel trusses, as demonstrated in the construction of the Ottawa Convention Centre, which reused 57 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction nine 160ft long trusses from old buildings on that site [O’Connor 2004]). Steel is particularly suited for reuse due to its durability and robustness during deconstruction (UK Indemand 2014). Figure A.1 in Appendix A presents possible structural construction systems made of reused materials. There are three barriers to reuse of structural steel. First, although new steel is certified based on a process audit, reused steel must be re-certified by mechanical testing to confirm its grade, and this is a costly process. Second, although deconstruction rather than demolition can be profitable due to the value of reclaimed materials and components, it still takes longer, and delays to a construction project program are undesirable. Third, because reuse of components is still relatively uncommon, there is a supply problem – for example, finding the appropriate steel section sizes and lengths can be difficult and expensive (Steel Construction Information 2014). In contrast, non-structural materials can also be salvaged and reused, and this is more common than structural steel reuse as re-certification is not required (UK Indemand 2014). Other technical and logistical barriers to reuse of structural steels are summarised in Table 4.12. Table 4.12: Barriers to reuse of structural steel Technical barriers  Lack of standardisation of components  Ensuring and warranting the performance of reused components  Lack of detailed knowledge of a product’s properties and in-use history (this may be important, for example, if the component has been subject to fatigue loading)  Quality assurance of reused products Logistical barriers  Lack of commercial drivers for reuse  Cost of storage, cataloguing, refurbished products, etc.  Cost of testing to verify and guarantee properties  Client expectation that ‘second-hand’ products should be cheaper than new ones Source: Sattary and Thorpe (2011); Steel Construction Information (2014). Structural engineers have an important role in respect to this process – to produce construction designs that allow for reuse of steel and other components (Bull 2012). Steps that they can take to maximise the opportunities for reusing structural steel include: 58 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction Figure 4.9: Reuse strategy, End plate beam to column, beam-to-beam connections Source: (Steel Construction Information 2014)  Using bolted connections in preference to welded joints to allow structures to be dismantled during deconstruction (Figure 4.9)  Using standard connections including bolt sizes and spacing of holes  Ensuring easy and permanent access to connections  Where possible, ensuring that the steel is free from coatings or coverings that would prevent visual assessment of its condition  Minimising use of fixings to structural steel elements that require welding, drilling of holes, or fixing with Hilti nails – clamped fittings are preferable where possible  Identifying the origin and properties of components (e.g. by bar-coding, etagging, or stamping) and keeping an inventory of products  Use long-span beams as they are more likely to allow flexibility of use and to be reusable (Steel Construction Information 2014). In conclusion, reuse of steel construction elements is becoming more prominent across the world. Particular countries may implement reuse in different ways and for different reasons. However, this trend will help create a better future for everyone (World Federation of Engineering Organizations 2011). 4.5.7 Recycling and reuse of bricks Reuse and recycling options for bricks are economically viable because costs associated with sending bricks and concrete to landfill are rising. Demolition is also more expensive than deconstruction – brick disposal costs to landfill are $115/tonne, recycling uncontaminated material costs $24/tonne. Many companies will also collect bricks free of charge and typically sell them for $0.50 each, making reuse an attractive option (Brick Development Association [UK] BDA 2014; Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW 2014). 59 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction In the building of the London Olympics, 28 per cent of construction used recycled materials. Some materials were reclaimed for re-use as aesthetic and practical features in the Olympic Park – including 660 tonnes of various brick types, 176 tonnes of paving material, and 5,400 m of kerbing (Smith 2012). Since the early days of ecologically sustainable building, most brick manufacturers have incorporated recycled materials into their brick production in different ways. Materials used as recycled content can come from either pre-consumer or postconsumer sources. For example, ‘Green Leaf Bricks’ are newly manufactured fired masonry bricks composed of 100 per cent recycled materials, designed and engineered especially for sustainable construction (Green Leaf Brick 2016). Bricks may incorporate recycled materials such as overburden from mining, washings from aggregate processing, grog, sawdust and metallic oxides (BDA 2009). Research demonstrates a potential 40 per cent energy saving in brick manufacturing by using 67 per cent recycled container glass brick grog (BDA 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014). 4.5.8 Use of fly ash in bricks and concrete In a standard concrete mix, the cement component commonly accounts for approximately 70 to 80 per cent of the embodied energy. Fly ash, being a by-product of coal fired electricity generation, has a relatively low embodied CO2 content related to its manufacture, estimated at 0.027kg of CO2 emissions per tonne, 3 per cent that of Portland cement manufacture (Ash Development Association of Australia 2013). The manufacture of Portland cement is an energy intensive process that releases approximately 0.820 tonnes of CO2 emissions for each tonne of cement produced. A strategy to produce more sustainable concrete is to replace a portion of the cement component with one or more supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash. The benefits of using fly ash include reduction in CO2 emissions and embodied energy; reduction in resource use; re-use of industrial by-products as alternative raw materials; and sustainability achieved through efficient design and enhanced durability (Ash Development Association of Australia 2013). 60 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction In respect to bricks, US-made fly ash brick gains strength and durability from the chemical reaction of fly ash with water. However, 85 per cent less energy is used in fly ash brick production than in fired clay bricks. A potential 85 per cent reduction in released carbon emissions in brick manufacturing can thus be achieved (Volz & Stovner 2010; Structure Magazine 2014) (Figure 4.10). Figure 4.10: CO2 emissions of different brick types Source: Volz and Stovner (2010); Structure Magazine (2014); As fly ash brick technology produces bricks without using coal, it has the potential to eliminate carbon emissions from the brick-making industry which burns huge amounts of coal and emits millions of tons of carbon dioxide annually. Additionally, the process uses fly ash, previously an unwanted residue from coal-fired power plants. The World Bank is supporting fly ash brick production by allowing entrepreneurs to earn carbon credit revenues. So far, the project has allowed 108 fly ash brick plants to earn around $3.2 million (World Bank 2012). 4.5.9 Use of recycled aggregate in concrete Recycling concrete and using aggregates is an increasing practice at construction sites. For example, in 2006 the Brookhaven National Laboratory saved over $700,000 in construction costs by using Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) from the demolition of ten structures (Craven 2012). Another example was in construction of the 2012 London Olympics Park, where over 200 buildings were dismantled, and the materials reused (Ingenia 2014; Learning Legacy 2014). 61 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction The sustainability summary of the London Olympics notes that a quarter of all materials used in the buildings were recycled – this included 400,000 tonnes of concrete which used up to 76 per cent recycled aggregate (‘stent’, a by-product of the Cornish china clay industry), and 40 per cent recycled cement substitute (granulated blast furnace slag) in the concrete. Sixty per cent of recycled content was used in the interior block work; recycled glass in the wall insulation; and recycled plastic for the seats. Additionally, the foundations of the Aquatics Centre, Handball Arena, and Olympic Stadium all used concrete containing more than 30 per cent recycled materials in place of gravel, which otherwise would have had to be mined and transported to the site. Overall, around 90 per cent of materials left over from construction, demolition and excavation works were reused or recycled on site (Ingenia 2014; Learning Legacy 2014). The Gulf Organisation for Research and Development has found that the recycling of concrete, brick and masonry rubble as concrete aggregates is an important way to contribute to a sustainable material flow. Experimental studies were carried out on the improvement of RCA performance. Beneficial effects from polymer based treatments applied to RCA were obtained, especially lower water absorption and better fragmentation resistance (Spaeth & Tegguer 2013). To achieve emissions reduction in construction, many countries are focusing on recycled concrete aggregates as they are proven to be practical for non-structural concrete, and to a limited extent for some structural-grade concrete. In Australia, there are a number of manufactured and recycled aggregates readily available in certain localities, and these have potential to be used in construction. Air-cooled blast furnace slag and manufactured sand are two good examples of concrete aggregates (Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia CCAA 2015). Additionally, the use of milled waste glass as partial replacement for cement is estimated to effectively overcome the limitations of recycled aggregate (Nassar & Soroushian 2012). Recent research (e.g. Katz 2003; Tam, Gao & Tam 2006; Kotrayothar 2012) has demonstrated that the use of recycled aggregate in both structural and non-structural concrete applications has become technically feasible and commercially viable (Eguchi et al 2007). For example, recycled concrete aggregate has now been used in 62 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction a wide range of construction projects in Germany, Hong Kong, Britain, Norway and Australia, confirming the practicality of its use. Many countries including Australia have thus established specialised standards for recycled concrete aggregates (Yiu, Tam & Kotrayothar 2009; Kotrayothar 2012; Tierney 2012). Concrete recycling is thus a method that is an attractive option to achieve greater sustainability and cost savings in construction. Using concrete waste as aggregate also solves the critical shortage of natural aggregate anticipated in the near future (Portland Cement Australia 2014) It is generally accepted that when natural sand is used, from 30 to 80 per cent of natural crushed coarse aggregate can be replaced with coarse recycled aggregate without significantly affecting any of the mechanical properties of the concrete. As replacement amounts increase, drying, shrinkage and creep will increase, and tensile strength and modulus of elasticity will decrease. However, compressive strength and freeze-thaw resistance are not significantly affected (Uche 2008; Kwan, et al. 2012; Portland Cement Australia 2014). When the mix design method proposed by the Department of Environment in the UK was used, a target strength was achieved even when 80 per cent of the total coarse aggregate content was replaced by the RCA (Kwan et al. 2012). It is also apparent that at 75 per cent or less RCA replacement, the concrete compressive strength is well above the designed characteristic strength of grade 30 concrete, hence it can be used for structural grade concrete work (Uche 2008). According to Tam (2009), from experience gained in Japan in recycling of concrete, Australia should develop a unified policy on concrete recycling; seek financial support from the government to implement recycled concrete use; and develop clear technical specifications and standards on the use of recycled aggregate for structural applications. Table 4.13 presents the current recycled aggregate concrete codes in the US, UK and Australia. 63 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction Table 4.13: Summary of recycled aggregate concrete codes in the US, UK and Australia Country Recycled Aggregate Maximum RCA Maximum RCA 28 Day, Cylinder (Type/Name/Classification) Substitution Strength 100% 20MPa USA LCA 25% 50MPa 60% NS Concrete No restriction 40MPa RCA 20% Designated concrete, 20 to 40 MPa UK LCA No restriction No restriction RA 16 MPa Class 1A - RCA 30% 40 MPa AU Class 1B - RCA 100% 25 MPa Source: Chisholm (2011). LCA = Leftover Concrete Aggregate; RCA = Recycled Concrete Aggregate; RA = Recycled Aggregate; NS = Non-Structural Concrete, 4.5.10 Replacement of cement with geopolymers Geopolymer has a history starting in the 1940s, and has attracted significant academic research, but has yet to achieve significant market use. However, the use of geopolymer concrete is increasing, in part motivated by the sustainability benefits of using a binder system composed almost entirely of recycled materials. Wagners are an Australian company supplying a proprietary geopolymer concrete for both precast and in-situ applications in the construction industry (Aldred & Day 2012). Figure 4.11: 10.8 metre geopolymer beam with vaulted soffit being craned into position Source: Aldred and Day (2012) Geopolymers were first used in some concrete applications in the Soviet Union after World War Two, being known then as 'soil-cements'. Numerous structures have been constructed since then, though no commercial entities have carried this through to an industrial scale (Zeobond Group 2014). The University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute is the world’s first building to successfully use geopolymer based cement for structural purposes (Geopolymer Institute 2014); and the Wellcamp 64 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction Airport in Toowoomba is the first airport in the world where geopolymer cement has been used (Welcamp 2014). Replacing the high embodied energy Portland cement component of concrete with an appropriate lower embodied energy alternative is a simple way of reducing the embodied energy of concrete. Because concrete is such a universal building material, such energy saving may be significant (Lawson 2006). Fly ash geopolymer can be used as binding material for partial replacement of cement in geopolymer concrete (Lohani et al. 2012). The opportunities for using fly ash in production of sustainable concrete are extensive and will continue to increase. Related to this, Louisiana Technology University is currently working to develop a 'green' type of concrete that uses geopolymers to reduce greenhouse gases by as much as 90 per cent compared to regular Portland cement (Building industry council 2014). Replacing some of the cement content in concrete with sustainable construction materials such as fly ash is arguably the most efficient and economical means of reducing CO2 emissions of concrete (Ash Development Association of Australia 2013). Key elements that could be considered to result in a more sustainable outcome when using such concrete are – less resource depletion; reduced emissions in production of the material or components (embodied energy); reduced water consumption; and waste avoidance and reduction (Geiger 2015). Geopolymer represents a sustainable and economical binding material as it is produced from industrial by-products such as fly ash (Nath & Sarker 2014). Research has shown that fly ash based geopolymer concrete cured in ambient conditions can be modified for desirable workability, setting time, and compressive strength using ground granulated blast-furnace slag as a small part of the binder (Olivia & Nikraz 2012). Full replacement of Portland cement by geopolymer can result in a 97 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. However, where Portland cement has been replaced with geopolymer concrete mixes based on typical Australian usage, there is potential only for a 44 to 64 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, with associated reductions in financial costs (McLellan et al. 2011). For instance, the 65 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction released carbon emissions for a one square metre ‘200 mm concrete slab on ground Floor’ (Case Study 4: Civil Engineering Laboratory building, USQ) are 58.12 Kgs CO2/m2. Use of geopolymer concrete can reduce this to 29.73 Kgs CO2/m2, representing a potential 48.84 per cent (28.39 kg) reduction in the released carbon emissions, and reducing the total costs of cement production by up to 50 per cent (Calculation is illustrated in Table A.A.8, Appendix A). In 2014, a project submitted to the Low Carbon Living Capital Research Centre (LCLCRC) aimed to gather field data from geopolymer real-life constructions to develop greater confidence in geopolymer use. Using field and laboratory data, a comprehensive handbook for geopolymer specification was developed and published through Standards Australia. Additionally, a pilot program developed lightweight aggregates based on fly ash to produce lightweight concrete, which reduces energy usage in buildings. Current technologies for producing lightweight aggregates using sintered fly ash involve carbon intensive processes. This project aims to develop low carbon processes based on geopolymerisation and alternative methods for producing aggregates from fly ash (LCLCRC 2015). The project is supported by a range of partner organisations including the Ash Development Association of Australia (ADAA), the Australian Standard Associations (ASA), the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Swinburne University of Technology (SUT), and others. The project coordinators also have support from the main Australian geopolymer concrete suppliers, including Zeobond Pty Ltd and Wagners Concrete Pty Ltd, and other interested parties. The project is being funded by these various partner organisations, and this research has great potential in geopolymer concrete and high-volume applications of fly ash (Ash Development Association of Australia 2013). An example of the use of geopolymer concrete in block wall construction is provided in the carbon emissions for a one square metre ‘cavity concrete block wall’ (Case Study 4: Civil Engineering Laboratory building, USQ). Emissions can be reduced from 37.73 Kgs CO2/m2 to 23.28 Kgs CO2/m2 by use of geopolymer cement, representing a potential 38.29 per cent (14.45 kg) reduction in released carbon emissions. The detailed calculation is presented in Table A.A.9 in Appendix A. 66 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction 4.5.11 Emissions reduction in transportation Transport activity is a major source of carbon emissions due to the use of fossil fuels. Transport produced 83.2 Mt CO2-e or 15 per cent of Australia’s net emissions in 2010. Emissions from this sector were 32 per cent higher in 2010 than in 1990. Road transport is the main source of transport emissions (Macintosh 2007; Carbon Neutral 2015). In respect to construction, environmental pollution relates to mining, logging and transportation of raw materials, and then to the manufacture and transportation of the finished products, and their installation on the construction site. Waste and debris from demolished and dismantled buildings can be reused as an aggregate. This occurred in construction of the 2012 London Olympics Park where over 200 buildings were dismantled, and around 98.5 per cent of the debris was reclaimed and reused in production of the thousands of tonnes of concrete produced on site. Reduced use of fossil fuel was also achieved due to use of nearby waterways to transport materials and waste out of the park (Inventory of Carbon & Energy 2011; Aggregate Industries 2014). Calculations in Table A.A.10 (Appendix A) indicate that reduced transportation emissions by not carrying the waste to the landfill was 15.42 kg CO2/m2 for each square metre of 200 mm concrete slab laid. 4.5.12 Using sustainable types of transportation The carbon emissions associated with construction are relatively small when compared to other aspects of construction operations. However, the use of sustainable modes of transport is still important. The energy consumption of different modes of transport is presented in Table 4.14 – thus, it is important to reduce road transport where possible. For example, the Tata Steel Group manages shipping and logistic operations. Their policies towards a shift to sustainable modes of transport for construction materials include – using water and rail in preference to road transport; road haulage weight optimisation; linking outward journeys with return journeys to minimise empty running; and improving the efficiency of the contracted and sub-contracted haulage fleet (TATA Steel 2015). 67 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction Table 4.14: Transportation energy consumption: United Kingdom and Canada Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Mode (MJtonne/km) United Kingdom (MJtonne/km) Canada Road 4.50 1.18 Rail 0.60 0.49 Ship 0.25 0.12 Source: Lawson (1996). For reuse and recycling to become established in the Australian construction industry, several supporting initiatives will need to be enabled. Salvage markets and speciality suppliers of used building materials will have to increase in number and scope of offerings. Databases detailing the salvaged materials on offer will need to be established – providing life cycle inventory data, assembly and disassembly instructions, and warranty information on the building materials. Buyers and sellers need to know the full origin, use and impact of the materials or assemblies they are to exchange (Bales 2008). Specifications in a building contract that demands use of recycled materials can facilitate increase in reuse. The following items are usually easy to locate and reuse – recycled steel reinforcements, recycled or plantation timber, recycled concrete and bricks. For example, there is an online initiative linking buyers and sellers of building products called Construction Connect in Sydney. Similarly, Eco Buy lists suppliers of second-hand construction and building materials. Buying recycled products increases the market for them, making it more viable for businesses to supply them (Hawkesbury City Council 2014). 4.6 Barriers to emission reduction in construction The recovery process for deconstructing materials used in building can be time consuming and expensive. Additionally, many buildings were not constructed with future recovery of materials in mind. In this respect, recovered non-structural materials are more commonly used than structural components as certification is not required. There are specific barriers to reuse of some construction elements. For example, reused steel must be recertified before use, and this is costly (UK Indemand 2014). Finding the appropriate steel section sizes and lengths can also be difficult and 68 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction expensive (Steel Construction Information 2014). There are also barriers to use of geopolymer concretes due to lack of standard specifications and unfamiliarity of their use (Wilson & Tagaza 2006). Asbestos contamination is also a well-documented problem, and still presents a significant issue in waste derived from demolition and renovation works. High recovery rates for materials are achieved when materials are captured closer to the source, before there is opportunity for mixing with other wastes (Edge Environment Pty Ltd 2012). A summary classification of barriers to emission reduction is presented in Table 4.15 Table 4.15: Barriers to emission reduction Market barriers - Guaranteed quality and quantities of reused materials are difficult - Reuse today is rare, there is a supply problem - Limit and lack of market (many cities have limited markets, though these are increasing market in the US, Germany and the UK) Design for Deconstruction - Design for deconstruction in new buildings is often not considered important - Existing buildings are not generally designed to be deconstructed Technical barriers - Lack of standardisation of components - Reused steel generally must be recertified by mechanical testing to confirm its grade and this is costly - Ensuring and warranting the performance of reused components - Lack of detailed knowledge of the product’s properties and in-use history - Quality assurance of reused products - Robustness of products in the deconstruction process (e.g. many lighter products do not survive the deconstruction process intact) - Practicalities of economic deconstruction including deconstructing composite components - Some new materials are subsidised, creating unfair competition with reused materials - Increased use of non-reversible technology, systems, construction, chemical bonds, plastic sealants etc - There are significant volumes of materials still being sent to landfill due to the lack of technology or equipment to sufficiently clean materials. - Asbestos contamination is a well-documented problem - New construction systems make recovery more difficult and less financially rewarding Logistical and Transportation barriers - Assured availability of supply - Demolition programs are too short to enable contractors to deconstruct buildings - Lack of sufficient storage space for recovered products - Deconstruction as opposed to demolition has significant impacts on the health and safety 69 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction precautions required Legislation and codification barriers - Construction and demolition waste minimisation is not a priority for some councils and governments - Inconsistent units of measurement in local waste data - Waste management is a local council responsibility - Lack of standard specifications for recycled products Economic barriers - The high cost of transport and storage of recycled components and materials - Cost of storage, cataloguing, refurbished products, etc. - Cost of testing to verify and guarantee properties - Finding the appropriate section sizes and lengths can be difficult and expensive - Additional cost of deconstruction over faster demolition Liability barriers - How to manage and apportion risk and liability associated with deconstruction and reuse - Current standard specifications imply new materials should be used -The limit and lack of a grading system for reuse components - Liability in certification of reused components or materials is not clear Construction and Demolition Industry barriers - Lack of communication and networking in the construction and demolition industry with waste minimisation organisations - There is no formal umbrella group to distribute information - There are significant volumes of materials still being sent to landfill due the inability to identify markets for the material as it is presented. - Demolition is generally a low profit margin industry compared with construction Source: Storey et al. (2005); Sattary &Thorpe (2011); Steel Construction Information (2014); UK Indemand (2014). The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia have developed a specifications course designed to assist project managers and engineers responsible for public works to understand the specifications for materials such as recycled aggregates and other substitute materials, and to learn how to incorporate them into projects (Edge Environment Pty Ltd 2012). As the range of recyclable and reusable products and materials increases, there will be a greater need for such courses to provide awareness of materials and, more importantly, knowledge of how to use them successfully in projects. 4.7 Summary This chapter has reviewed the significance of embodied energy and relevant carbon emissions in the construction process, and identified the optimum methods for their measurement. Discussion also centred on how construction carbon emissions may be 70 Chapter Four Embodied energy and carbon emissions of construction minimised. This sets the context for the next chapter which takes as its focus Bioclimatic Design Principles and their application to the six case studies within this research. 71 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model CHAPTER FIVE BIOCLIMATIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES, GREEN BUILDING RATING TOOLS AND THE RESEARCH MODEL 5.1 Overview Bioclimatic design principles (BDP) have already been introduced in Section 2.5 of Chapter Two. The purpose of this chapter is to provide more detail of the BDP criteria and their basic application to the six case studies in this research. There is also consideration of how BDPs are integrated into a range of green building rating systems. As will be seen, voluntary application of measures to reduce the carbon emissions of construction by the various stakeholders is patchy at best. Given this, it may be that legislation compelling the use of BDPs and similar measures through the building life cycle may be necessary. This chapter is divided into nine sections. Section 5.1 provides an overview to the chapter. Section 5.2 discusses how BDPs can be applied in building design. Section 5.3 identifies how carbon emissions can be reduced through use of BDPs as exemplified in respect to aspects of the six case studies considered in this research. Section 5.4 considers bioclimatic design principles as applied in current best practice, and their current positioning with the LEED, BREEAM and Green Star green building rating systems. Section 5.5 identifies measurable criteria derived from BDPs that can be used to quantify the degree of carbon emission reduction that may be achieved through use of BDPs. Section 5.6 considers the carbon emissions achieved through use of BDPs in other research and under laboratory conditions. Section 5.7 discusses the limitations of green tool rating systems. Section 5.8 considers the role of Building Information Modelling (BIM) and how green tool rating systems may be integrated into its use. The final Section 5.9 provides a summary of this chapter’s content. 5.2 Using bioclimatic design principles in building design The term ‘bioclimatic’ refers to a process where savings in energy are achieved through the use of bioclimatic design principles (BDP) in building. As the energy efficiency of buildings increases, the relative contribution of embodied energy to total energy consumption becomes increasingly important, as does its reduction through bioclimatic design principles or other method. Energy saving (carbon 72 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model emissions reduction) may be achieved through attention to BDPs during design. Appropriate bioclimatic design can reduce energy consumption in a building by five to six (Jones 2003). Other benefits of such energy reduction include improved health and productivity of workers, and reduction in costs of building (Birkeland 2002). The Energy Design Partnership (EDP) company (2012) proposed use of bioclimatic design principles to improve and regulate environmental conditions in a building. As well as their use during the construction of the building, bioclimatic design principles are also taken into account during the design phase of the building in order to optimise control or use of the sun, the prevailing winds, and the ambient temperature and humidity. The Energy Design Partnership believes that exploitation of solar energy can be achieved in several ways – including through appropriate design of the building envelope (to maximise absorption of solar energy during winter, and minimise it during summer); through suitable orientation of spaces and openings in the building (a southern orientation is considered as the most appropriate); through the optimum sizing of the openings; through use of a layout of the interior spaces of the building based on thermal requirements; and finally by the adoption of passive applications that can collect sunlight and thus be considered as a 'natural' heating system (EDP 2012). As seen in the Energy Designs Partnership example above, appropriate bioclimatic design can achieve thermal protection of a building by the suitable placement of openings to prevent the escape of heat; by use of appropriate insulation of the building envelope; and by strategic arrangement of internal spaces. Additionally, the provision of shading has as its goal the protection of the building from overheating during summer with strategically placed internal or external, vertical or horizontal blinds. Such systems and passive cooling techniques are a method of bioclimatic design that aims to control a building’s microclimate. Another technique emerging from bioclimatic design principles is the careful use of natural lighting in a direct or indirect way to optimise conditions of comfort within the building for the sake of its occupants. In the final analysis, the crucial principle of bioclimatic design is to achieve the least possible energy consumption concurrently with provision of optimum thermal and 73 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model visual comfort for the users of a building (EDP 2012). The ‘resources’ of bioclimatic design may be considered as the natural flows of energy in and around a building – created through the interplay of the sun, wind, precipitation, vegetation, temperature and humidity in the air and in the ground (Architecture 2015). This present research is focused on construction carbon emissions reduction. This can be achieved through use of bioclimatic design principles to identify measurable criteria that have potential to reduce carbon emissions generated by building construction. There are two main aims in bioclimatic construction – first, to ensure that the constructed building is able to function satisfactorily within current and future climatic conditions; and, second, that the environmental impact of existing buildings is reduced through reduction in their energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (Clarke & Pullen 2008). The following is a summary of the bioclimatic design principles that have been used in the model proposed in this present research. They focus on reduced and smarter use of sustainable materials to minimise carbon equivalent emissions.  Minimise energy consumption in mining, processing, equipment use, preassembly and assembly in manufacturing. Criteria measured are reduced energy in mining, processing, and construction materials.  Minimise transportation at all stages of the building process. Criteria measured are reduced energy as a result of preassembly and reduced materials transportation.  Minimise use of resources, achieving waste reduction by facilitating reuse and recycling. Criteria measured are reduced energy by recycling and reusing of building materials and building elements.  Maximise use of renewable energy. Criteria measured are replaced and saved energy in mining and construction (preassembly, professional worker transportation, site processing, materials transportation). 5.3 Reduction of carbon emissions by application of bioclimatic design principles to the six case studies The following guidelines have been identified through analysis of bioclimatic design principles to measure the potential carbon emissions that can be reduced in the preconstruction and construction stages of building (lifecycle stages 1 to 3). The criteria 74 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model focus on three main areas that can measure potential carbon reduction: first, carbon emission from energy consumed in extraction and production of building materials and elements; second, in implementation; and finally, in transportation. At this stage, the research model and the calculations have been applied only to the major building elements (floor, wall and roof) of Australian construction systems; and only consider stages one, two and three of the building lifecycle (Table 5.1): extraction, production, and construction. Table 5.1: Building lifecycle stages Stage one Stage two Stage three Stage four Stage five Extraction Production Construction Operation Demolition Source: Author Measurable indicators from bioclimatic design principles that can be used to decrease the embodied energy and the associated carbon emissions of building construction – from mining and processing of natural resources to manufacturing, transport and product delivery – are delineated in Table 5.2 below, and also in Tables A.B.1 and A.B.2 in Appendix B. The following methods and techniques based on bioclimatic design principles can reduce construction carbon emissions. They are available, but are not being consistently and properly used and applied in existing construction practices. This research proposes that if these practices were adopted, this would result in substantial reduction of construction carbon emissions. These reductions could be achieved through consideration of the bioclimatic criteria in Table 5.2; by legislation granting credits for use of environmental assessment tools (LEED, BREEAM, Green Star) to enable reuse of structural elements; by expanding and creating a warehouse of parts and reuse markets; and by expanding deconstruction techniques, machinery and facilities (Bales 2008; Steel Construction Information 2014). 75 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model Table 5.2: Measurable indicators – potential carbon emissions reduction in construction processes Stage of construction process Measurable carbon emissions (embodied energy) that can be reduced in extraction and production of Building Materials Stage 1 and 2 Stage 3 Pre-Construction Construction Saved and reduced embodied energy (relevant carbon emissions) by using recycled, reprocessed, reassembled components, materials and elements Saved and reduced carbon emissions (embodied energy) by: - Reusing buildings, spaces and building elements - Using re-treated, repaired and recycled materials - Using materials with recycled content Measurable carbon - Reduced carbon Saved and reduced carbon emissions in emissions that can emissions in production construction processes: be reduced in processes - Replaced materials to reduce carbon emissions Implementation - Replaced renewable energy in construction processes - Reduced carbon emissions by reducing materials use Measurable carbon emissions (embodied energy) that can be reduced in Transportation - Reduce carbon emission - Reduce carbon emissions in transportation and in transportation and construction processes by: production process - Reusing and recycling materials - Replaced renewable - Regionalizing and localizing suppliers energy and reduced energy in transportation - Using types of transportation that generate less carbon emissions such as ship or rail rather than road Source: Author The following paragraphs discuss the application of these techniques to the six case studies considered in this research. Table 5.3 presents results in three columns in respect to the case studies – the possible reduced carbon emissions achieved through use of BDPs; the standard/Basic (expected) carbon emissions without application of BDPs; and the percentage reduction achieved through use of BDPs. These are referenced in Table 5.3. by letters (a) to (o), and build on examples discussed in the previous chapter. Detailed calculations for these results (a to o) are presented in Appendix A. (a) Potential emission reduction by use of steel from average recycled content Carbon emission for steel from primary resources is 3.33kg CO2/kg (Lawson 1996), but that of steel from average recycled content is 1.96 kg CO2/kg (Greenspec 2015). Steel from average recycled content: Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled 76 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model content = 5.148 Kg/m2 x (embodied energy of steel from primary resources 34 MJ/Kg) (Lawson 1996, p. 13) – (embodied energy of the steel from average recycled content 20.10 MJ/Kg) (GreenSpec 2015) = 71.55MJ/m2. By using steel from recycled content in the mesh of the concrete slab of Case Study 5 (London Olympics buildings), the basic carbon emissions of 17.14 kg CO2/m2 can be reduced to 10.09 kg CO2/m2, representing a 58.8 per cent reduction in generated carbon emission from just the concrete ground slab (see Table 5.3). (b) Potential emission reduction by use of recycled materials in brick production Research demonstrates a potential 40 per cent energy saving in brick manufacturing by using 67 per cent recycled container glass brick grog (BDA 2014; Tyrell and Goode 2014). If this technique was applied in Case Study 2 (ACF Green Home – a timber framed brick veneer wall system), there would be a potential 40 per cent energy savings in brick manufacturing. The relevant calculations show that the released carbon emissions could be reduced from 36.04 kg to 21.63 kg, a potential 40 per cent reduction (see Table 5.3). (c) Potential emission reduction by use of fly ash brick Fly ash brick gains strength and durability from the chemical reaction of fly ash with water. However, 85 per cent less energy is used in fly ash production than in fired clay brick (Volz & Stovner 2010; Structure Magazine 2014). For example, the carbon emission for a one square metre clay brick veneer wall system is 36.06 kg CO2/m2 (Case Study 3). Carbon emissions could be reduced to 6 kg CO2/m2 by using fly ash brick. This represents a potential 85 per cent reduction in released carbon emissions in brick manufacturing by using fly ash brick (see Table 5.3). Reduced energy 368 MJ/m2 x 85% = 312.8 MJ/m2. (d) Potential emission reduction by use of recycled concrete aggregates If a concrete mix uses from 30 to 80 per cent of coarse recycled aggregate, mechanical properties of the concrete are unaffected (Uche 2008; Kwan, et al. 2012; PCA 2014). In this case, the embodied energy of the aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg (GreenSpec 2015). If this technique was applied in Case Study 2 (ACF Green Home – a 110 mm Concrete slab on ground Floor), the following could be achieved. The released carbon emissions could be reduced from 47.13 Kg CO2/m2 to between 45.84 77 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model and 43.68 Kg CO2/m2, a potential reduction of 2.73 to 7.32 per cent (1.29 - 3.45 Kg CO2/m2) in released carbon emissions from a 110-mm concrete ground floor slab (see Table 5.3). (e) Emission reduction by using unwanted gas pipelines for structural elements An example of the reuse of structural steel is that the roof trusses of the London Olympic Stadium were made out of unwanted gas pipelines (Craven 2012; Learning Legacy 2014). In Case Study 5, this use of unwanted gas pipelines in the steel framed, fabric roof of the London Olympic Buildings reduced carbon emissions by 18.02 per cent – usual carbon emissions for this process at 27.63 kg CO2/m2 was decreased to 22.65 kg CO2/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) (Table 5.3). (f) Potential emission reduction by reuse of brick Reuse of deconstructed bricks, specifically in non-exposed locations, can achieve an emission reduction of 28.85 kg CO2/m2 as demonstrated in Case Study 2, the ACF Green Home. Reuse of brick in the timber-framed clay brick veneer walls reduced carbon emissions by 52.48 per cent – usual carbon emission for this process at 54.97 kg Co2/m2 was decreased to 26.12 kg CO2/m2 (see Table 5.3). (g) Potential emission reduction by recycling and reusing concrete roof tiles Concrete roof tiles can be used towards achieving LEED credits in several new construction or major renovation categories. For example, they can be crushed and recycled, or reused as landscaping fill (LEED 2014). Reuse of concrete roof tiles in the timber frame, concrete tile roof of Case Study 2 demonstrates reduced carbon emissions of 0.65 per cent – usual carbon emission for this process at 23.52 kg CO2/m2 was decreased to 21.95 kg CO2/m2 (see Table 5.3). (h) Potential emission reduction by decreasing material use in design The London Olympics stadium (Case Study 5) weighs only 4,500 tonnes, the lightest Olympic Stadium ever built. This was achieved through design that aimed for reduced materials use. Calculating the reduction of carbon emissions achieved in the London Olympic Stadium is as follows – the basic carbon emissions level of 39.3 Kgs CO2/m2 was reduced to 8.02 Kgs CO2/m2. There was thus a 79.6 per cent 78 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model reduction in released carbon emissions from the London Olympic stadium (Table 5.3). (i) Potential emission reduction by replacing Portland cement with E-Crete According to the International Energy Agency, the manufacture of cement produces about 0.9 kilograms of CO2 for every kilogram of cement produced. In respect to Portland cement, the CSIRO has found that for every tonne of Portland cement manufactured, one tonne of carbon dioxide is produced. As noted around 5 per cent of global CO2 emissions result from cement manufacture, making it one of the most polluting activities undertaken by mankind (Zeobond Group 2014). A new geopolymer cement product called E-Crete forms at room temperature, requires no kiln, and uses fly ash as the main component. Life cycle analysis studies show that E-Crete produces 80–90 per cent less carbon dioxide than traditional Portland cement. Australia is now among the world leaders in research and commercialisation of such cement (Smith et al. 2009). For example, in Case Study 2, the energy required to construct a one square metre area of a 110-mm concrete slab with Portland cement is 47.13 kg. If this is replaced by E-Crete, the released carbon emissions for one square metre of a 110-mm concrete slab can be reduced to 40.91 kg. If there was full replacement of Portland cement with this geopolymer product in floor construction, there is a potential 47.31 per cent reduction in released carbon emissions (Zeobond Group 2014) (see Table 5.3). (j) Potential emission reduction by replacing Portland cement with geopolymer Significant reduction in carbon emissions can be achieved by replacement of Portland cement by geopolymer cements. For example, the carbon emissions from one square metre of a ‘125 mm elevated concrete floor’ of the Velodrome Building for the 2012 London Olympics (Case Study 5) is 48.70 Kgs CO2 /m2 – by replacing 40 per cent of Portland Cement with geopolymer, this can be reduced to 39.49 Kgs CO2/m2, representing a potential 18.9 per cent reduction in released carbon emissions (Table 5.3) (calculations are illustrated in Table A.A.6, Appendix A). Alternatively, if Portland cement were fully replaced with geopolymer based cement, the released 79 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model carbon emissions for a one square metre a ‘125 mm elevated concrete floor’ (Case Study 5) would reduce from 48.7 Kgs CO2/m2 25.66 Kgs CO2/m2, representing a potential 47.31 per cent reduction in released carbon emissions (Table 5.3) (calculations are illustrated in Table A.A.7 in Appendix A). (k) Potential emission reduction by replacing Portland cement with geopolymer in concrete blocks The carbon emissions for a one square metre cored concrete block wall (Case Study 4 – Civil Engineering Laboratory building, USQ) is 37.73 Kgs CO2/m2 which can be reduced to 23.28 Kgs CO2/m2, representing a potential 38.29 per cent (14.45 kg) reduction in released construction carbon emissions (see Table 5.3). l) Potential emission reduction in transportation by rail or water Sustainability management reports show that 63 per cent (by weight) of construction materials were transported to the London Olympic Park by rail or water (JLL 2012), with consequent reduction in carbon emissions. For instance, consider the reduced carbon emission of transportation by reuse of one square metre of a ’200 mm concrete slab floor aggregate’ in Case Study 5: The Olympic Velodrome building. The carbon emissions of transportation if required materials were carried by road (truck) would be 13.62 Kgs CO2/m2. However, when recycled aggregates were used, the carbon emissions were only 1.29 Kgs CO2/m2. This represents a potential reduction of 90.52 per cent (12.33 Kgs CO2/m2) when recycled concrete aggregate is used (detailed calculations are illustrated in Table A.A.12, Appendix A). Similarly, for reuse of one square metre of ‘Concrete Block wall’s materials’ (Case Study 5), there is a potential 90.57 per cent reduction in the released carbon emissions (calculations are illustrated in Table A.A.13, Appendix A) (Table 5.3). (m) Potential emission reduction in transportation by localizing suppliers Using locally produced building materials shortens transport distances, thus reducing air pollution produced by vehicles (Structure Magazine 2014). For example, if the construction materials in Case Study Six (Multi Sports Building USQ) were supplied from a local instead of distant supplier, the potential reduction in carbon emission for one square metre of concrete block wall would be 3.91 kgCO2/m2, an 8.6 per cent reduction in the wall-generated carbon emissions (see Table 5.3). Even products 80 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model manufactured near the source of their raw materials reduce the transportation energy in the products. (n) Potential emission reduction in transportation by decreasing material use in design Reduced materials use in design also decreases the need for transportation, thus reducing carbon emissions. For example, the London Olympics roof (Case Study 5) used a minimum of steel due to its design, thus reducing carbon emissions to 0.37 Kg CO2/m2, an 0.94 per cent reduction in the roof generated carbon emissions (calculations are presented in Table A.A.11, Appendix A) (Table 5.3). (o) Potential emission reduction by replacing energy in transportation Construction materials can be carried by different types of transport. The energy efficiency of different means of transport is significant for construction materials (e.g. 4.5 MJtonne/km for road transport, compared to 0.60 MJtonne/km for rail, and 0.25 MJtonne/km for water) (Lawson 1996). For instance, the reduced carbon emissions in transportation (carried by water) gained by reusing one square metre of 200 mm concrete slab floor aggregates (Case Study 5 – Olympics Velodrome Building, London) is 12.33 Kgs CO2/m2 compared to carbon emissions generated by truck of 13.62 Kgs CO2/m2, representing a potential 90.52 per cent reduction in released carbon emissions (Table 5.3). 81 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model Table 5.3: Summary – Reduced carbon emissions, standard/basic carbon emissions, and percentage reduction in carbon emissions in the six case studies Reduction in Potential carbon emission Reduced Standard/Basic carbon Case Studies (CS reduction kgCO2/m2 kgCO2 /m2 emissions (%) Materials production Steel from average recycled CS5 – London content for the 200-mm 7.05 Olympic buildings (a) concrete slab floor Using recycled materials in CS2 – ACF Green brick for the timber-framed 14.58 Home (b) brick wall CS3 – Display Project Using fly ash for clay brick 30.06 Home (c) veneer wall system Using recycled concrete CS2 – ACF Green aggregates for concrete slab 1.29- 3.45 Home (d) floor CS5 – London Using unwanted gas pipelines 4.98 Olympic buildings (e) for structure of the roof CS2 – ACF Green Reusing brick for the non28.85 Home (f) exposed locations in wall CS2 – ACF Green Reusing concrete roof tiles 0.15 Home (g) CS5 – London Decreasing material use in 28.16 Olympic buildings (h) design for London stadium Implementation E-Crete fully replacing Portland CS2 – ACF Green cement with geopolymer in 110 20.30 Home (i) mm con. slab Replacing 40% Portland CC5 – London 9.21 cement with geopolymer in 125 Olympic buildings (j) mm con. slab Full replacement of Portland CS5 – London cement with geopolymer in 125 23.04 Olympic buildings (j) mm con. slab CS4 – Civil Use of geopolymer product in Engineering 14.45 cavity concrete block wall Laboratory (k) Transportation CS5 – Olympics Aggregate transportation for 12.33 Velodrome (l) concrete slab floor CS5 –Olympics Using low carbon transport for 10 Velodrome (l) concrete block wall materials CS6 – Sports building, Localizing suppliers of concrete 3.91 USQ (m) block wall materials CS5 – London Reducing steel use in the roof 0.37 Olympic buildings (n) by design so reduces transport Replacing renewable energy in CS5 – London transportation, water instead of 12.33 Olympic buildings (o) truck Source: Table provided by Author. Content summarised from this information and calculations, see Appendices A and B). 82 17.14 58.8% 36.04 40% 36.06 85% 47.13 2.73-7.32% 27.63 18.02% 54.97 52.48% 23.52 0.65% 39.3 79.6% 47.13 47.31% 48.70 18.9% 48.70 47.31% 37.73 38.29% 13.62 90.52% 11.04 90.57% 45.6 8.6% 39.3 0.94% 13.62 90.52 chapter (a-o) (for detailed Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model In this section, as exemplified in Table 5.3, bioclimatic design principles have been applied to the construction systems in the six case studies from Australia and the UK. These BDPs include:  Using recycled aggregates instead of extracting new aggregate from mining  Using steel from recycled content instead of raw materials  Using recycled construction materials and elements  Replacing Portland cement with geopolymer based cement  Using transportation that generates less carbon emissions (water or rail)  Reducing transportation by reuse/recycling, and localisation of production Table 5.4 summarises a number of bioclimatic design principles. Column one, ‘Bioclimatic design parameters’, represents the BDPs applied to the case studies referred to in this chapter. Column two, ‘Current conditions, Implemented’ are BDPs in current practice identified from the literature review. This column represents summarised data from Table A.D.1 in Appendix D where the numbered references may be found. Column three, ‘Conditions in this research’, represent the criteria required to achieve the potential construction carbon emissions referred to in this chapter. 83 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model Table 5.4: Bioclimatic conditions – current and from this research Bioclimatic Design Parameters Concrete from recycled aggregates Current conditions, Implemented In Australia, there are a number of manufactured and recycled aggregates readily available in certain localities. 1 Conditions in this research 100% recycled aggregate for non-structural purposes; 80 % recycled aggregate for structural purposes 6 Concrete block from recycled aggregates 24% recycled content of an aggregate concrete block; 8 Aggregate for concrete block fully from recycled aggregate13 Brick from recycled aggregates Current level of recycled material content in brick is 11%; 14,41 Reuse recycled aggregate for brick, 67% 19 Steel from average recycled content Primary typically 10-15% of scrap steel, Secondary 100% scrap based production 25, 34 Steel from fully post-consumer recycled content Reuse recycled and post-consumer structural and non-structural steel Scaffolding, formwork, sheet piles, etc., London Olympic Stadium 32, 34 Use 40% recycled and post-consumer steel elements Reduce material use in steel structural design 10-20% Some of the current green projects have reduced materials use in design by10-20%23 Reduced materials use in structural design 1020% Reuse recycled timber and postconsumer FSC timber FSC works in 80 countries, 24,000 FSC chain of custody certificates are active in 107 countries 23, 60% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber; FSC certified timber Roof tile from recycled tile In some countries, materials such as concrete roof 50% roof tiles from recycled aggregate 21 tiles, are removed separated and recycled 44, 45 Thermal insulation from recycled content Thermal insulation is fully recyclable, i.e. wool content 31 Thermal insulation from fully recycled waste 25 Portland cement replaced with geopolymer based cement Geopolymers have been used in structural, nonstructural applications e.g. University GCI Qld, Wellcamp Airport Qld 46, 47, 48 Geopolymer based cement fully replaces Portland cement, arranged for non-structural, structural Reduce transportation by reusing and recycled materials National Waste Policy Australia advise to reduce waste, re-use to reduce environmental impacts 35 Reuse has been considered in material production and building elements as well Transportation by water or rail not truck, Reduce transportation by localizing material supply. 15% of bricks are transported to the distributor’s yard or jobsite by rail and 85% by truck19, 30 Localizing has been considered in detail Source: This Table and data provided by author. References and detailed information for this table is presented in Appendix D, Table A.D.1. 84 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model 5.4 Bioclimatic design principles in best practice and green tools This section discusses the positioning and usage of BDPs in respect to current best construction practice, and then as they are currently positioned within the LEED, BREEAM, and Green Star green building tools. 5.4.1 Current best practice in use of bioclimatic design principles The following comments are made in reference to the BDP parameters in Tables 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6. Construction materials have a limited life cycle before they become waste. Their reuse in the form of concrete from recycled aggregate extends the lifespan of the product. The construction industry realises the need to use available aggregate rather than searching for the perfect aggregate to make an ideal concrete suitable for all concrete applications. The importance of recycling aggregate has been recognised by the construction industry. Indeed, to date, hundreds of tons of aggregate concrete have been recycled and used for road-base and pavement. However, the use of recycled aggregate in concrete has become even more common practice in recent times. In reference to ‘concrete from recycled aggregate’, in Australia, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) initiated one of the most significant steps in promoting the use of recycled aggregate in new concrete through publication of Guidance on the preparation of non-structural concrete made from recycled concrete aggregate and Guide to the use of recycled concrete and masonry materials were issued in 1998 and 2002 respectively. These guidelines recommend two classes of recycled aggregate (Class 1 and Class 2) for non-structural concrete applications. Despite the CSIRO guidelines, there is an urgent need to establish technical and performance standards for recycled aggregate for new concrete production (Tam 2009). A number of manufactured and recycled aggregates are readily available on the Sydney and Melbourne market. In other construction applications such as pavement, road base and sub-base, there is limited information on the performance of each material, as assessment appears to be based on field trials, especially those by road authorities. Clean waste recycled concrete aggregate is being used at least 95 per cent by weight in Australia (CCAA 2012a). 85 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model In reference to ‘concrete block from recycled aggregate’: based on a report from Concrete Block Association (CBA), the current average recycled content of an aggregate concrete blocks is only 24 per cent (CBA 2013). In reference to ‘brick from recycled aggregates’: recycled and secondary sources are increasingly important in the manufacture of clay bricks – the current level of recycled material content in brick is 11 per cent (Brick Industry Association [Virginia] 2009). Brick is made from abundant natural resources (clay and shale), and is readily recycled for use in the manufacturing process or other uses. Brick manufacturers address sustainability by locating plants in close proximity to mines; and by incorporating waste products and recycled materials into the brick (BDA 2009). In reference to ‘steel from average recycled content’: steel is produced by one of two production routes – the primary or basic oxygen steelmaking route which is based primarily on the reduction of iron ore and incorporates typically 10 to 15 per cent of scrap steel; and the secondary or electric arc furnace route which is 100 per cent scrap based production (Steel Construction Information 2014). In reference to ‘reuse recycled and post-consumer steel in structural and nonstructural’ applications: steel structures and steel construction products are reusable. This potential is illustrated by the large number of temporary work systems that use steel components, including scaffolding, formwork, sheet piles, etc. Provided that attention is paid to eventual deconstruction at the design stage, there is no reason why nearly all of the steel building stock should not be regarded as a vast warehouse of parts for future use in new applications (Steel Construction Information 2014). In reference to ‘reduce material use in steel structural design’: at present the reuse of building materials and products to reduce demand for virgin materials can be achieved, but there is no defined measure (US Green Building Council 2005). In reference to ‘reuse recycled timber and post-consumer Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) timber’: in 2012, around 165 million hectares were certified to FSC’s 86 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model Principles and Criteria in 80 countries, and around 24,000 FSC Chain of Custody certificates were active in 107 countries (Potts et al. 2014). In reference to ‘roof tiles from recycled tiles’: in some countries, there have been recycling rates of 65 to 80 per cent. Construction materials such as concrete roof tiles and timber are recommended to be removed separately as much as possible and sorted at the source to facilitate recycling (Tam, Gao & Tam 2005) In reference to ‘thermal insulation from recycled content’: thermal insulation is recyclable, and some manufacturers recover and recycle this product. For example, some thermal insulation such as mineral wool content can be fully recycled (Ecospecifier 2016). In reference to ‘Portland cement replaced with geopolymer based cement’: carbon emissions are expected to increase by 100 per cent from the current level in the next few years. Geopolymer cements are available in some areas, and have been used for structural and non-structural purposes. In Australia, geopolymer cement was used in construction of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute (GCI) (Geopolymer Institute 2014); and also in construction of Toowoomba’s Wellcamp Airport (Welcamp 2014). In reference to ‘reduce transportation by reusing and recycling materials’ and, ‘transportation by water or rail not truck … localizing’: the National Waste Policy advises that the generation of waste should be avoided, but when produced, waste treatment, disposal, recovery and reuse must be undertaken in a safe and environmentally-sound manner (Department of the Environment and Energy 2012). 5.4.2 Bioclimatic design principles and the LEED green building tool The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for New Construction is a green building certification program/tool established by the US Green Building Council (USGBC) in 1993. This rating tool recognises best-in-class building strategies and practices. It is claimed that LEED rates not only the materials used in construction of buildings, but also the effect those materials have on energy consumption, human health and the environment (USGBC 2016). 87 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model To achieve LEED certification, building projects must satisfy prerequisites and earn points to obtain different levels of certification. There are four levels of LEED certification: 26–32 points for certification, 33–38 points for silver status, 39–51 points for gold status, and 52–69 points for platinum status (Azhar et al. 2011). The calculation of recycled content begins in LEED-NC by determining the recycled content value of each building material. This is the sum of the percentage of postconsumer recycled content by weight plus one-half of the percentage of preconsumer recycled content by weight multiplied by the total cost of the material (BDA 2009). Some of the credits that LEED grants for reusing and recycling is given in Table 5.5. Table 5.5: LEED credits for reuse, waste management, recycled content and use of regional materials in construction Credit Materials and resources Points Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 55%, 75%, 95% of Existing Walls, Floors, and Roof up to 3 Credit 2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% or 75% up to 2 Credit 4 Recycled Content, 10% (1) or 20% (2) (post-consumer plus ½ pre-consumer) up to 2 Credit 5 Regional Materials, 10% or 20% up to 2 Source: Project checklist – LEED – New construction (NC) v3 (Concrete Thinking 2014) For example, in regard to reuse of recycled aggregate in concrete, the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) provides specific guidelines as to use of returned leftover concrete. Its recommendations include the use of leftover concrete aggregate ‘as received all-in’ (coarse + fine) in non-structural applications up to 30 per cent by total weight of aggregate. This recommendation presumes that there is some sorting of the leftover concrete to use only leftover concrete 20 MPa and above. Up to 100 per cent replacement of coarse aggregate is allowed only for nonstructural applications (Chisholm 2011). For structural applications, the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) generally allows up to 10 per cent by total weight of aggregate (equivalent to 20 to 25 per cent by weight of coarse aggregate); and 100 per cent recycled coarse aggregate replacement for concrete strengths up to 20 MPa (Chisholm 2011). LEED grants a range of credits for local building reuse, construction waste management, resource reuse, use of recycled content, and regional materials. The use 88 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model of recycled aggregate in concrete block is awarded up to two points; and in brick production up to 4.5 points (BDA 2009; Obla, Kim & Lobo 2010). LEED also grants up to one point for use of FSC certified wood (Forest Stewardship Council 2010). Detail of credits granted in LEED is presented in Table A.B.3 in Appendix B. In respect to use of bioclimatic design principles, LEED credits awarded are summarised in Tables 5.6 and 5.7. 5.4.3 Bioclimatic design principles and the BREEAM green building tool BREEAM – the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method – was first published in 1990 by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the United Kingdom. It is claimed to the world’s most established and widely used environmental assessment method for buildings, with over 116,000 buildings certified, and over 714,000 buildings registered. Recent studies have shown that BREEAM has helped reduce CO2 output by over 4.5 million tonnes since its inception (Aubree 2009). BREEAM covers a range of building types including offices, homes, industrial units, retail units, and schools. Other building types can be assessed using the Bespoke BREEAM (a custom-made option). When a building is assessed, points are awarded for each criterion, and the points are added to a total score. The overall building performance is awarded a rating of Pass, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Outstanding based on the score (Fowler & Rauch 2006). BREEAM International schemes also use a star rating system of 1 to 5 corresponding to the above rating categories (Aubree 2009). Buildings already certified or under assessment are located in twelve countries in Europe, as well as in the US, Algeria, Dubai, Mauritius, Philippines, Qatar, Lebanon, Morocco and Malaysia (Aubree 2009). BREEAM contains a range of items that aim to reduce construction carbon emissions through use of bioclimatic design principles. Highlights are as follows. In respect to reusing ‘recycled aggregate’: where there is a maximum permitted level of 50 per cent recycled aggregate, one point is awarded when the percentage of recycled aggregate used is greater than or equal to 35 per cent. Where there is no maximum 89 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model regulatory level, the 50 per cent requirement must be achieved in order to gain this credit (BREEAM 2014a). In respect to ‘concrete block from recycled aggregate’: one point is awarded where at least 25 per cent of the aggregate used consists of secondary and/or recycled aggregate (Chisholm 2011). In respect to ‘Portland cement replaced with geopolymer based cement’: one point is awarded where cement and aggregate used is responsibly sourced (BREEAM 2014a). In respect to ‘steel from average recycled content’: in the UK, almost 90 per cent of these steel products are recycled through an electric furnace process. In this process, producers of structural steel are able to achieve up to 97.5 per cent recycled content for beams and plates, 65 per cent for reinforcing bars, and 66 per cent for steel deck (Kang & Kren 2007). In respect to ‘reuse recycled timber and post-consumer FSC timber’: up to three points are awarded where materials being assessed (including timber) are part of a pre-or post-consumer waste stream (Chisholm 2011). In respect to ‘thermal insulation from recycled content’: one point is awarded where at least 80 per cent of the thermal insulation used in the assessed building elements is responsibly sourced (BREEAM 2014). In respect to ‘reduce transportation by reusing and recycling materials’: one credit is awarded where at least 25 per cent of the aggregate used is obtained from a waste processing site within a 30km radius of the site (Chisholm 2011). A summary of the credits that BREEAM grants for achieving a reduction in construction carbon emissions in the rating process is presented in Tables 5.6 and 5.7, and in Appendix D in Tables A.D.1 and A.D.2. 5.4.4 Bioclimatic design principles and the Green Star green building tool The Green Star tool is an internationally recognised sustainability rating system launched by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) in 2003. Green Star covers from individual buildings to entire communities, and is transforming the way the built environment is designed, constructed and operated in Australia. The Green 90 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model Star tool is Australia’s only national, voluntary rating system for buildings and communities (GBCA 2016). The Green Star rating system is based on the US LEED system. It represents a comprehensive approach for evaluating the environmental performance of Australian buildings based on a number of categories (Iyer-Raniga & Wasiluk 2007). The Green Star rating scale provides a tool for rating buildings and fit outs, and scores are based on how the building achieves best practice or above sustainability outcomes. Buildings assessed using the Green Star tool can achieve a rating from 1 to 6 Green Stars – with stars rating respectively as Minimum Practice, Average Practice, Good Practice, Best Practice, Australian Excellence, and World Leadership (GBCA 2016; 2017). Bioclimatic design principles to reduce construction carbon emissions are considered in the Green Star tool, and the following commentary relates to the associated credits. In reference to reusing ‘recycled aggregate’: Green Star grants one point when 20 per cent of all aggregate used for structural purposes is recycled aggregate class one (i.e. with a maximum specified strength limit of 40 MPa), and no natural aggregates are used in non-structural items (GBCA 2008). In reference to ‘steel from average recycled content’: Green Star recognises the reduction in carbon emissions and resource depletion associated with use of recycled steel (GBCA 2008). In reference to ‘reuse recycled and post-consumer steel in structural and non-structural’ elements’: Green Star grants up to 2 points where 90 per cent of all steel by mass either has post-consumer recycled content greater than 50 per cent, or is reused (GBCA 2008). In reference to ‘reduce material use in steel structure’: Green Star grants one point where 20 per cent less steel has been used than in conventional steel framing, without changing the load path to other structural components (GBCA 2008). In reference to ‘reuse recycled timber and post-consumer FSC timber’: Green Star grants up to 2 points where 95 per cent of all timber products used in building and construction works have been sourced from any combination of the following: reused 91 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model timber, post-consumer recycled timber, or Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified Timber (GBCA 2008). In reference to ‘roof tiles from recycled tile or recycled content’: Green Star grants one point where at least 2 per cent of the project’s total value is represented by reused products or materials. Additionally, one point is given for concrete where no natural aggregate has been used for non-structural purposes, for example in roof tiles (GCBA 2008). In reference to ‘Portland cement replaced with geopolymer’: Green Star awards two points where Portland cement content is reduced by 40 per cent in concrete block production (CCAA 2012b). Green Star also awards up to two points where a project has reduced use of Portland cement (GBCA 2008). In reference to ‘reduce transportation by reusing and recycling materials’: Green Star credits reusing and recycling of up to 40 per cent of materials, but only advises localising, and using water and rail instead of road (GBCA 2008). A summary of Green Star credits for achieving carbon emissions reduction in the rating process is presented in Tables 5.6 and 5.7, and detailed information is provided in Appendix D, Tables A.D.1 and A.D.2. 92 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model Table 5.6: Bioclimatic conditions of the research considered in the green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM) Bioclimatic conditions, Parameters Australian Tool Green Star (GBCA) Concrete from recycled Green Star, one point, 20% of aggregate for structural purpose; no natural aggregates aggregate used in non-structural purposes 2 Concrete block from Green Star, 40% RA; no natural recycled aggregate aggregates in non-structural 23,33 Brick from recycled Green Star, no direct credit, Mat-3, 80% aggregates reused material 2,9, 16 Steel from average recycled Green Star, Mat-6; maximum 60% postcontent consumer recycled content 23 US Green Tool LEED LEED, recycled content, 10-20% of aggregate up to 3 points; 2, 24; 20-30% of aggregate for structural 100% non-structural purposes, US 18,36 ASTM, structural 20-25% coarse aggregate; 100% up to 20 MPa 18, 36 LEED, recycled content in brick 10-20%, MR 4, 2 points, 2 ½ points 14 LEED, 65-97.5% post-consumer recycled content Reuse recycled and postconsumer steel in structural & non-structural Reduce material use in steel structural design LEED, 1-2 points to 75-100% reuse of existing walls, floors and roof 24, 3 Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer FSC timber 95% of the joinery; 50% of the structural framing, roofing, designed to be disassembled 5 Green Star, Mat-6, grade reduced materials in design,10-20%, 23 Mat-10, one point for 20% reduction Green Star 95% of all timber products reused, post-consumer; FSC certified timber 23, 16 LEED, eliminating the need for materials in the planning and design phases 10, 7 BREEAM, grade reduced materials in design 21 avoiding over-design, material reuse 39 LEED, timber products re-used, post-consumer; 50% FSC certified timber, up to 1 point 32, 29, 24 BREEAM; up to three points where timber is part of a pre-or post-consumer waste stream 36 BREEAM; M03, roof tiles can be extracted from the waste stream 36 22, 23 Roof tiles from recycled tiles Thermal insulation from recycled content Portland cement replaced with geopolymer based cement Reduce transportation by reusing and recycling materials Transportation by water or rail not truck, Reduce transportation by localizing Green Star, Mat-5 one point, where no natural aggregates are used in nonstructural uses 23 Green Star, no direct credit, but 80% recycled content advised 27, Green Star; Maximum 60% In situ concrete 40% precast and 30% for stressed concrete; 30% for 1 point and 40% for 2 points 23, 26 Green tools credit the reusing and recycling up to 40% of materials, not directly credited 2, 15, 35 Green Star advise localizing, using water and rail instead of road 2,15 LEED credits; produced from postconsumer recycled content, from the waste, up to 3.5 points 20,21 LEED, MR4, 20% or more recycled thermal insulation, one point 12, 7 LEED Concrete consists of at least 30% fly ash; 50% recycled content or reclaimed aggregate; 90% recycled content or reclaimed aggregate 23, 12,7 80% thermal insulation must be responsibly sourced 1 point 37 One point awarded where geopolymer cement used and supply chain process and must be responsibly sourced 40 Green tools credit the reusing and recycling up to 40% of materials, not directly credited 2, 15 One credit where obtained from waste processing site(s) within a 30km radius of the site 37 Regional materials, localizing, using water and rail instead of road 2,15 LEED, Regional Materials, up to 4 points14; tools advise localizing, using water and rail instead of road 2,15 References, specifications and detailed information of this table is presented in Table A.D.2 (Appendix A) 93 UK Green Tool BREEAM BREEAM, 25-50% RA; no restriction in 16 MPa and 40 MPa; 20% Designated concrete 20-40 MPa 2, 36 BREEAM, no restriction in 16 MPa and 40 for Concrete block 36 BREEAM; all waste reused; recycled content is 11% 14 BREEAM, Mat-6;60% recycled content38;97.5% beams, plates; 65% bars; 66% steel deck 16 BREEAM, Mat-6; maximum 60% recycled content 23 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model 5.5 Measurable criteria based on BDPs to reduce construction carbon emissions The bioclimatic principles identified in this research are expressed as measurable criteria that can be applied in construction projects to reduce potential construction carbon emissions. The column labelled ‘Conditions in this research’ in Table 5.7 in this chapter, and in Table A.D.1 in Appendix D, represent the bioclimatic criteria that produce the highest possible carbon emission reductions when appropriately applied. A research model has been proposed to measure embodied energy in the preconstruction and construction phases of building that takes into account decreased and replaced renewable energy in preconstruction and construction processes; saved energy in transportation by localisation; and reduced energy from reusing and recycling of materials. The detailed model format is illustrated in Appendix B. The three areas examined in this study with reference to reduction of carbon emissions (CO2-e) are – energy consumed during extraction/production of construction materials and building elements; energy consumed during implementation; and energy consumed during transportation. The measurable criteria summarised below and in Tables 5.6 and 5.7 are derived from bioclimatic design principles and have been applied to the construction systems of the six case studies in this research. 94 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model Bioclimatic principles applied in this research to the six case studies Reusing recycled aggregates Application in materials production recycled aggregate. and 100 per cent for non- instead of extracting new structural purposes (Uche 2008); and brick with 67 aggregate from mining per cent recycled aggregate (BDA 2014; Tyrell & This includes replacing concrete with 80 per cent Goode 2014). Using steel from recycled This includes the use of steel mesh, edge beams, and content instead of steel from steel sheets, aiming towards 100 per cent raw mining replacement from recycled content (Greenspec 2015; Steel Construction Information 2014). Reusing recycled This includes reusing post-consumer recycled timber construction materials and or certified timber from the Forest Stewardship elements Council (FSC) (Design Coalition 2013; GBCA 2008,); use of insulation from recycled materials (Greenspec 2015); use of concrete tiles from recycled roof tiles (LEED 2014); and reuse of structural elements (Karven 2012). Replacing Portland cement This includes full replacement of Portland cement with geopolymer based with cement substitute, 80 per cent for concrete for cement structural purposes, and 100 per cent for nonstructural purposes (McLellan 2011; Nath & Sarker 2014). Using types of transportation This refers to use of ship and rail instead of trucks, that generate less carbon i.e. use of sustainable modes of transportation emissions (Learning Legacy 2014). Reducing transportation This is done by reusing recycled aggregate, recycled materials, localizing and similar approaches. 95 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model 5.6 Bioclimatic principles considered in other research and under laboratory conditions Following is a summary of the bioclimatic design principles applied in research elsewhere and the laboratory, but which are more stringent than have been considered in this study. Concrete from recycled aggregate: The CSIRO guide gives contamination limits for various classes of RCA. The binder content for Grade 1 RC concrete with 30 per cent partial replacement with coarse Class 1A RCA is comparable to that required for concrete containing 100 per cent natural aggregate. For Grade 2 RC mixes containing up to 100 per cent coarse Class 1A RCA, extra binder loading may be required to achieve the specified compressive strength (CCAA 2015). Brick and concrete block from recycled aggregate: Using recycled aggregate as the replacement for natural aggregates of up to 100 percent, concrete paving blocks with a compressive strength of not less than 49 MPa can be produced without the incorporation of fly ash, while paving blocks for footway uses with a lower compressive strength of 30 MPa and masonry bricks can be produced with the incorporation of fly ash (Poon, Kou & Lam 2002). National Green Building Standard 4RE 604.1: Brickwork can help meet requirements of many certification rating systems in the areas of development density, storm water management, the heat island effect, improved energy performance, building reuse, waste management, materials reuse, recycled content and regional materials (BDA 2009). Reuse recycled and post-consumer steel from average recycled content in structural and non-structural applications: In the production of structural shapes and bars, 95-100 per cent old steel can be used to make new products. In this process, producers of structural steel are able to achieve high percentages of recycled content (Kang & Kren 2007). Most steel construction material and elements are highly reusable such as for sheet and bearing piles; and structural members, including 96 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model hollow sections and light gauge products such as purlins and rails (Steel Construction Information 2014) (Craven 2012; Learning Legacy 2014). Reduce material use in steel structural design: In practice, the most noteworthy cases using an integrated design process or linear design process have achieved a considerable reduction in material use (Ecospecifier 2016). For example, the London Olympics stadium was constructed using only a tenth of the steel required to build Beijing's ‘Bird's Nest’ stadium (Craven 2012). Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer FSC timber: This includes the complete re-use of timber products post-consumer, reusing recycled products, or the use of FSC-certified timber. FSC in Australia surpasses 1 million hectares of certified forests. with Forico, a Tasmanian forestry management company, awarded full FSC certification (FSC 2015). Roof tiles from recycled tiles: Demolition and debris from land clearing can be recycled and reused. For example, roof tiles are reusable, with concrete roof tiles being less prone to waste. Concrete roof tiles can be crushed and recycled or reused as landscaping fill (LEED 2014). Thermal insulation from recycled content: Thermal insulation can contain high levels of post-consumer recycled content, being ultra-low to zero in content of volatile organic compound (VOC) products, as well not being associated with health concerns. For example, some thermal insulation such as mineral wool batts contain 100 per cent recycled blast furnace slag (Ecospecifier 2016). Portland cement replaced with Geopolymer based cement: The outcomes of the current research show that geopolymer based cement which is a relatively new binder can be a sustainable and economical binding material, as it is produced from industrial by-products such as fly ash. Geopolymer cements can replace 100 per cent of the Portland cement in concrete. here is increasing interest in geopolymer based cement due to its low level of carbon emissions compared to Portland cement (Nath & Sarker 2014). 97 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model Reduce transportation by reusing and recycling materials, localizing, and use sustainable modes of transport: In the future, construction design must ensure that there is minimum wastage, maximum recycling, and (thus) reduction in transportation. A summary of the items detailed in this section is given in Table 5.7. Column one, ‘Bioclimatic principles/criteria’ are identified from the present research into bioclimatic design principles. Column 2, ‘Current conditions, implemented’, are design principles already in current practice (full references are in the legend at the base of Table A.D.3 in Appendix D). Column 3, ‘Conditions with green tools’, detail the credits in the LEED, BREEAM, and Green Star rating tools that relate to the bioclimatic criteria being used in this research (i.e. in Column 1). Column 4, ‘Conditions in this research’, refers to the bioclimatic criteria as applied in the case studies in this research. 98 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model Table 5.7: Bioclimatic conditions – current; from best practice with green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM); and from this research model Conditions with Green tools (Green Star., LEED, Current conditions, Implemented Conditions in this research BREEAM) Concrete from recycled In Australia, there are a number of G.S. and LEED 1-3 points 20-30% RA for structural Fully RA for non-structural purpose; aggregates manufactured and recycled aggregates purposes; BRE 25- 50 % in 20-40 MPa - no restriction, 100% 100% RA for non-structural; 80 % RA readily available in certain localities. 1 non-structural 2, 18, 36 for structural purpose 6 Bioclimatic principles/criteria Concrete block from recycled aggregates 24% recycled content of an aggregate concrete block 8 G.S., BRE, 40%; US 25% RA structural; 100%, or no natural aggregates in non-structural 18,23,36 Aggregate for concrete block fully from recycled aggregate 13 Brick from recycled aggregates Current level of recycled material content in brick is 11% 14,41 G.S., 30%;16, 23; LEED 20%; BRE 11% ISO, up to 10 points for 10% Recycled aggregate 14,16,36 Reuse recycled aggregate for brick, 67% 19 Steel from average recycled content G.S. Mat-6, 60%; LEED 65-97.5%; BRE, Mat-6, 60%; 97.5% beams, plates; 65% bars; 66% steel deck postconsumer recycled content 23,16,38 Steel from fully post-consumer recycled contents G.S., 95% Joinery, 50% structural framing, roofing; LEED 75-100% existing wall, floor, roof; BRE, Mat-6, 60% recycled content 3,5,23,24 Use 40% recycled and post-consumer steel elements G.S., Mat-6, 10-20% one point; LEED, eliminating need for materials in the design stage; BRE reduced, avoiding overdesign 23,21,10,7,32 Reduced materials use in structural design 10-20% Primary typically 10-15% of scrap steel Secondary 100% scrap based production 25, 34 Reuse recycled and postconsumer structural and nonstructural steel Scaffolding, formwork, sheet piles, etc., London Olympic Stadium 32, 34 Reduce material use in steel structural design 10-20% Some of the current green projects have reduced materials use in design 10-20%23 Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer FSC timber FSC works in 80 countries, 24,000 FSC chain G.S. 95% re-used, post-consumer; FSC certified timber; up to 60% of all timber products re-used, of custody certificates are active in 107 3 points; LEED, 50% FSC; BRE, 3 points, post-consumer post-consumer recycled timber; FSC countries.23, waste stream 22, 23, 32,24,29 certified timber Roof tile from recycled tile In some countries materials such as concrete G.S. Mat-5, 1 point, no natural aggregates are used; LEED, roof tiles, removed separated and recycled44, from the waste, up to3.5 points, BRE, M03, from the waste 45 stream 20,21,23,36 50% Roof tile from recycled aggregate 21 Thermal insulation from recycled content Thermal insulation is fully recyclable, i.e. wool content31 G.S. 80% advised; LEED MR4 20%, ½ point, BRE 80%, 1 point, responsibly sourced 12.7,27,37 Portland cement replaced with geopolymer based cement Geopolymers have been used in structural, non-structural, Zeobond group, University GCI in Qld, Wellcamp Airport, Qld46,47,48 G.S. 60% In situ concrete; 40% precast 30% stressed concrete; Geopolymer based cement, fully LEED, 30% structural; no limit others, BRE, responsibly replaced with Portland cement, arranged sourced cement 23,26,7 for non-structural, structural Reduce transportation by reusing and recycled materials National Waste Policy Australia advise to reduce waste, re-use to reduce environmental impacts 35 Green tools credit the reusing and recycling up to 40% of materials, not directly credited; obtained from30km radius of the site 2,15,35,37 Transportation by water or rail not truck, Reduce transportation by localizing 15% of brick are transported to LEED, regional materials, up to 2 points;14tools advise the distributor’s yard or jobsite by rail and localizing, using water and rail instead of road 2,15 85% by truck 19, 30 Source This Table and data provided by Author. References and detailed information of this table is presented in Table A.D.1 (Appendix D) 99 Thermal insulation from fully recycled waste 25 Reusing has been considered in material production and building elements Localizing has been considered Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model 5.7 Limitations of green tool rating systems Following investigation of the bioclimatic conditions within the green tools, it is noted that their focus is on energy use and the environment. All contain numerous requirements and credits intended to reduce building operational energy use. However, what is often lacking in these green rating systems is a means by which to promote and measure the avoidance of negative consequences. For example, only one of these tools (LEED) currently contains methods to measure the avoidance of construction waste. All measure the diversion of waste from landfills, but only the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) green tool (not considered in this present research) recognises that some materials have little or no on-site waste to begin with. In addition, the efficient use of materials is not properly recognised in the green tools. Materials such as brickwork perform multiple functions and construction can thus avoid the use of other materials, such as paints, sound insulation etc. (BDA 2009). In short, LEED, BREEAM and Green Star can still be further improved. Another issue is that at this point in time, green building rating tools are simply not being consistently factored into building design. Added to this, even when a construction project is assessed against a green building tool such as LEED, BREEEAM or Green Star, those tools do not, in fact, adequately integrate BDPs into the criteria they rate. This can be seen in reference to Table 5.8 which compares the relative use of green tools in current practice, Green Star, LEED and BREEAM, and in the model proposed in this research. As can been seen from Table 5.8, the integration of bioclimatic design principles is consistently higher in all categories in the research model as compared to current practice and the green building rating systems being considered. 100 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model Table 5.8: Relative use of bioclimatic criteria in current practice, Green Tools and for this Research Research model Bioclimatic conditions Current Green Star LEED practice BREEAM Codes/Standards Concrete from recycled aggregates, structural purposes Poor 20% 30% 40% 80% Concrete block from recycled aggregate, non-structural 24% 40% 25% 40% 100% 11% UK - 10-20% 11% 67% 60% 65-97% 65-66% 100% Brick from recycled aggregates Steel from average recycled content 10-15% Reuse recycled and postconsumer non-structural steel 10%< - 75% 60% 60% - - - - 40% Reduce material use in steel design Poor 10-20% - - 10-20% Reuse recycled timber and postconsumer FSC timber Poor 95% NS 50% - 60% Roof tile from recycled content Poor - 20%+ - 50% Thermal insulation from recycled content Poor 80% 20%+ 80% RS 100% Portland cement replaced with geopolymer cement, nonstructural purposes Poor 60% 50% - 100% Reuse recycled and postconsumer structural steel Portland cement replaced with geopolymer cement, structural Poor 40% 30% 80% purposes Source: Table and data provided by Author (derived from data in Chapter Five) Poor = Less than 25% availability | Fair = 25-50% availability | Good = 50-75 availability | Excellent = 75-100% availability, | NS = Non-structural | RS =Responsible Sourced 5.8 Building Information Modelling (BIM) and green design Building Information Modelling (BIM) software provides a three-dimensional digital representation of a building or construction project (Eastman et al. 2011). BIM has applications in the engineering, architecture and construction industries, particularly as it provides a basis for life cycle analysis of a building or construction project, including energy usage analysis at various (conceptual) points of the building life cycle. This analysis of a building’s energy consumption at the conceptual design stage allows for decisions to be made about the most suitable design that will provide an energy efficient building. BIM thus allows for greater sustainability and low energy performance to be more easily factored into any construction project (Jalaei & Jrade 2014). 101 Chapter Five Bioclimatic design principles, tools and the model BIM can estimate embodied energy and equivalent carbon emissions data. This information can be used to assess and calculate potential construction carbon emissions reduction in Australian construction systems at all points in the building life cycle (Eastman et al. 2011). BIM plugins for life cycle analysis tools such as Tally and IMPACT are already available (EPD-Tally 2008; IMPACT 2016). There is also work currently being conducted to link BIM and energy analysis tools with green building certification systems. This will allow building designers to identify the most energy efficient construction alternatives, and thus to calculate the potential green tool points they might gain for a given design using LEED, BREEAM, Green Star, or other green rating system (Jalaei & Jrade 2014). 5.9 Summary This chapter has identified a range of criteria derived from bioclimatic design principles which can be used to reduce the carbon emissions from construction projects. As has been seen, the current use of BDPs and green rating tools in construction projects is inconsistent, and the green tools themselves also fail to integrate BDPs adequately into their rating criteria. Additionally, the bioclimatic design criteria in the research model have been demonstrated to potentially achieve higher levels of carbon emission reduction than in any of the rating tools considered, or even in current best practice. The levels of carbon emission reduction may improve even further as Building Information Modelling with integrated life cycle analysis becomes more widely applied in construction design and building projects. 102 Chapter Six Research methodology and research design CHAPTER SIX RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN 6.1 Overview It is generally accepted that the construction, demolition, reconstruction and restoration of buildings result in intensive energy consumption and generated carbon emissions with considerable environmental impact. It is thus imperative to reduce the energy consumption and carbon emissions of the construction process. There are existing techniques to do this, but these are inconsistently applied and lacking in depth of criteria for application. There are no recognised benchmarks defining acceptable levels of embodied energy and relevant carbon emissions of the construction process. There is also a lack of knowledge and research with a focus on reducing the carbon emissions of construction through the application of bioclimatic design principles. This present research contributes knowledge to these areas, and proposes a green tool based on consideration of bioclimatic design principles whose application has the potential to reduce the carbon emissions of the construction process. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the type of research and process used to achieve these aims. This chapter is divided into seven sections. Section 6.1 provides an overview to this chapter. Section 6.2 discusses the research type and case study method. Section 6.3 considers the procedure (methodology) used to achieve the research aims. Section 6.4 identifies the sources providing the embodied energy and carbon emissions data analysed in this research. Section 6.5 delineates the limitations of this study. Section 6.6 identifies how the results from the study may be generalisable to other construction contexts. Section 6.7 provides a summary of this chapter. 6.2 Research type and the case study method In any discussion of research methods, there is always debate regarding the scholarly nature, contributions, merits and limitations of quantitative as compared to qualitative research (Gan 2006). This present research is based on quantitative methods that use objective measurements to analyse the numerical data collected in the research. In respect to this, the aim of quantitative research is to gather numerical data and generalise it to explain a particular phenomenon (Giesbrecht 1996). 103 Chapter Six Research methodology and research design Quantitative research requires the use of structured and objective data, where the response options have been predetermined. The objective data for this research is gathered from a range of sources relating to the six case studies examined in this research, and to Australian construction systems (detailed in Section 6.3). Six case studies were selected as a number that provide for a stronger research design, greater validity of the findings, and for more confidence in results that are generalisable to other contexts. In this respect, multiple case studies also allow the researcher to verify that findings are not just the result of the characteristics of the research setting (Gan 2006). This research investigates the potential construction carbon emissions that can be reduced by application of bioclimatic design principles. The bioclimatic conditions depend on where that building and its construction site is located. Accordingly, the six cases studies were selected from a range of different locations in order to provide different construction contexts for application of the research model, enhancing its validity. 6.3 Research methodology This study has been conducted through a range of stages. Stage one involved identifying and detailing the embodied energy and carbon emissions inherent within the construction process, and how they might be measured (Chapter Four). Stage two identified specific measurable bioclimatic criteria within bioclimatic design principles that could be applied in the green model/tool developed for this research (Chapter Five). Stage three involved application of this model to specific elements of the floor, wall and roof construction systems used within the six case studies, and analysis of the potential reductions in carbon emissions that could be achieved (Chapter Seven). Stage four involved application of the model to emissions and embodied energy data available for elements of general floor, wall and roof construction systems in Australia, and analysis of the potential reductions in carbon emissions that could be achieved (Chapters Seven). 104 Chapter Six Research methodology and research design 6.4 Sources of embodied energy and carbon emission data used in this research The Australian construction data used in this research has been obtained from Lawson’s publications in 1996 and 2006. The analysis and detail of Australian floor, wall and roof construction systems supplied by Lawson (1996), and the embodied energy of building materials data supplied in Lawson (2006), have been applied within the research model, this to demonstrate how construction carbon emissions may have been reduced in the selected Australian case studies. One international case study was also considered in this research, namely the velodrome building constructed for the London Olympics in 2012. Extensive data from this construction was detailed in various sources (e.g. Rodway 2010; Inventory of Carbon & Energy 2011; Bull 2012; Smith 2012). A sample of the developed model format is illustrated in Appendix B. A summary of the six case studies is provided in Table 6.1. Other supporting data concerning the embodied energy and carbon emissions of specific elements of the construction process were obtained from a variety of sources. These include the Australian Your Home technical manual (Milne & Reardon 2014); the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM 2014b); Ecospecifier (2015; 2016); the Environmental Design Guide (EDG 2014); the Green Building Council of Australia (2008; 2014a; 2014b; 2016; 2017); GreenSpec (2015); the Inventory of Carbon and Energy (2011); and the US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED 2015; 2016). Ecospecifier is a database of independently vetted eco-preferable products and materials including product descriptions. It is not a rating tool. It was developed initially by the Centre for Design at RMIT, and is now managed by Natural Integrated Living. It provides an understanding of the upstream and downstream implications of decisions in an economic, legal and ecological sense. It helps the user to identify eco-preferable products and materials, and to understand associated environmental and health issues that need to be considered in the use of a product (Iyer-Raniga & Wasiluk 2007). 105 Chapter Six Research methodology and research design Table 6.1: Case Studies – Construction systems of the main elements (floors, walls and roofs) Construction Systems Case studies in this research Floors 1. Friendly Beaches Lodge, 1991; accommodation for guests completing a guided three-day bushwalk Single skin timber walls Timber frame, steel sheet roof 110 mm Concrete slab on ground floor; Timberframed upper floor Timberframed brick veneer walls Timber frame, concrete tile roof Freycinet Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia 2. ACF Green Home, 1992. This display home was constructed for VDPH in accordance with environmental guidelines prepared for the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) Source: Architect: Taylor Oppenheim Architects Environmental Design Guide (EDG Roxburgh Park, Victoria, Australia 2014) Source: Lawson (1996) Roofs Timber frame floor Architect: Latona Masterman Source: Trip Advisor (2014) Walls 3. Display Project Home, 1994. This Canberra 110 mm TimberDisplay Project House was sponsored by Concrete framed Energy Research Development Corporation slab floor brick (ERDC) to demonstrate the application of veneer energy-saving design measures. walls Timber frame, steel sheet roof Architect: Jen-Vue Homes Ginninderra, Australian Capital Territory 4. Civil Engineering Laboratory, USQ, 2013; This is a one-level 350 m2 building commissioned by the University of Southern Queensland (USQ) Nairn Construction; Architect: Wilson Source: This author Architects Springfield Central, 4300, Brisbane, Australia Source: London Olympics (2012) 5. The London Olympic Velodrome Building. The design brief asked for a lightweight construction. All parties in the construction supply chain co-operated to deliver the project to minimise excess material usage. 200 mm Concrete slab on ground floor Cored Steel Concrete frame, steel block sheet roof walls Concrete slab floor Concrete upper floor Cored Steel Concrete frame, block fabric roof walls; Steel frame timber wall Principal architects: Jonathan Watts, George Oates, Hopkins, Olympic Park London 6. Multi Sports Building, USQ, 2013. This Concrete Cored Steel frame, two-story 302 m2 building was commissioned slab floor Concrete steel sheet by USQ which as a multi sports building. roof Concrete block walls commercial Nairn Construction; Architect: Reid Design upper floor Source: This author Springfield Central, 4300, Brisbane, Australia 106 Chapter Six Research methodology and research design The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (2011) is a research database located at the University of Bath in the UK. It provides an inventory of embodied energy and carbon emissions for building materials in the UK. Other specific data was also collected from various suppliers and manufacturers of construction materials in the UK and Australia (e.g. Steel Construction Information 2014). Some of the original data and information about the case studies was also obtained directly from the designers – for example, data and information about two of the case studies at USQ was obtained directly from their building manager. Finally, the latest findings and data about the currently accepted and used percentages for recycled and reused construction materials was obtained from the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (2011). 6.5 Limitations of this study As noted in Section 1.4 of Chapter One, this study is limited to stages one to three of the building lifecycle. These stages of the building life cycle are summarised in Figure 6.1. Stages of Life Cycle Model of Building. Stages within this study (1-3) P os t -C o ns t r uc t i o n P re - C o ns t r uc t i o n C o ns t r uc t i o n Stage1 Design A s s es sm e nt M a t e r i a l A s s es sm e nt  Planning D es i g n a n d M a t er i a l S p e ci fi ca t i on Stage 2  D e m ol i t i o n Stage 3 C o ns t r uc t i o n P r oc e s s A s s es sm e nt  C on s t r u c t i on P r oc es s es C on s t r u c t ed Bu i l d i n g W hol e b ui l di ng As sessm e nt  Stage 4 P os t O c c up a nc y A s s es sm e nt D em ol i t i o n A s s es sm e nt  R ep a i r a n d M a i n t en a n c e R e fu r b i s h m en t D em ol i t i on Material Processing and M a n u fa ct u r i n g Waste     P r i m a r y R ow M a t er i a l s  R en ew a b l e  U n r en ew a b l e Stage 1,2 R ec yc l i n g R eu s e R ec on d i t i on i n g R ep r o ces s i n g Industrial and ot h er W a s t e  Inorganic  Organic Stage 3 DISPOSAL Stage 4 Stage 5 Figure 6.1: Life cycle model of building. Stages 1 to 3 are within this study. Source: Derived from Lawson (1996) and UNEP SBCI (2009) 107 Chapter Six Research methodology and research design 6.6 Generalising the outcomes from this study The major outcome from this study is identification of a model to reduce the carbon emissions of construction during the first three stages of the building life cycle. This model has been applied to the six case studies within this research. The findings are considered as generalisable to other Australian construction projects where the model is appropriately applied. 6.7 Summary This chapter has outlined and justified the research type and methodology used for this study, and identified the sources of the embodied energy and emissions data analysed within the research model. The limitations of this research have also been described. Results from the application of the research tool/model developed for this study are described in Chapters Seven. 108 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data CHAPTER SEVEN RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF APPLYING THE RESEARCH MODEL TO CASE STUDIES AND GENERAL AUSTRALIAN CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS 7.1 Overview The purpose of this chapter is to present the results and analysis of this research project. The bioclimatic criteria of the research model are first applied to the floor, wall, roof and then whole construction systems of the six case studies considered in this research. The research model criteria are then applied to elements of general Australian floor, wall and roof construction systems. The carbon reductions achieved, and the associated emissions generated, from application of the research model are then compared with results obtained from similar standard building system elements, implementation (completion) of building projects, and application of the Green Star rating tool. Results are presented in four ways for each construction system studied – as tables of numerical data for the reductions in emissions achieved, and the carbon emissions generated; the emissions generated are then displayed in a comparative bar graph; the final table available for each construction system considered presents the carbon emission reductions achieved as comparative percentages for each type of building element. An overall analysis of each section’s results is also presented. The chapter is divided into seven sections. Section 7.1 provides the background to this chapter. Section 7.2 details the six case studies selected for this research. Section 7.3 presents the data and analysis of results obtained following application of the research model to elements of floor, wall and roof construction systems in the case studies. Section 7.4 presents the data and analysis of results obtained following application of the research model to elements of general Australian floor, wall and roof systems. Section 5 summarises the content of this chapter. 109 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.2 Selected case studies The model developed reviews six case studies, five from Australia and one from the United Kingdom. The Australian case studies use the general construction systems in Australia as identified by Lawson (1996). These can include any project from any classification (residential, public, and commercial). For example, the first three case studies are taken from a paper written by Lawson (1996) – all detail and information for these are provided, together with embodied energy and implemented embodied energy (Lawson 1996). The fourth and sixth case studies focus on buildings recently completed on the Springfield campus of the University of Southern Queensland (USQ). All drawings and detailed information were accessible. The Olympic Velodrome Building from the London Olympics in 2012 is the focus of the fifth case study – these Olympics achieved high sustainability levels from a range of different environmental tools (e.g. CEEQUAL, ISCA, and BREEAM). In case study five, the data was obtained from four main sources – Rodway (2010); Inventory of Carbon & Energy (2011); Bull (2012); and Smith (2012). Table 7.1 presents the results from application of the bioclimatic criteria within the research model to the six case studies that could potentially result in significant carbon emissions reduction. This section details information about the floor, wall and roof construction systems used in the six case studies. Tabulated data of their embodied energies and carbon emissions are presented in the following sections, with detailed calculations presented in Appendix C. 110 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Table 7.1: Research model (bioclimatic criteria) applied to the six case studies (data extracted from Tables 5.4 and 5.6) Bioclimatic criteria Concrete from recycled aggregates 1. Friendly Beaches Lodge, 1991 80 % RA for fixing posts in the ground 1, 6, Concrete block from recycled aggregate 2. ACF Green Home, 1992 3. Display Project Home, 1994 80 % RA for concrete slab on ground 1, 6, 80 % RA for concrete slab on ground 1, 6, N/A N/A Brick from recycled aggregate Brick from 67% RA for posts Brick wall from 67% RA 19 Use recycled bricks 60% 19 Steel from average recycled content Steel sheets of roof from recycled content 100% 25, 34 N/A Reuse recycled and postconsumer structural and non-structural steel Reduce material (steel) use in design Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer FSC timber Use 60%, recycled timber or FSC certified timber for wall and roof 23 Roof tile from recycled tile N/A N/A Thermal insulation from recycled content Thermal insulation 100% from recycled content in the wall and roof 25 Geopolymer cement replacement for Portland cement 100% replacing PC with GC for fixing timber posts 26 Reduce transportation by reusing and recycled materials Use steel mesh produced with 100% recycled content in concrete slab floor 25, 34 N/A Transportation reduced by reuse of recycled materials; 32, 35 Transportation by water or Transportation reduced by using local supplier and rail not truck, Reduce materials 19, 30 transportation by localizing N/A 4. Civil Engineering 5. Olympic Velodrome 6. Multi Sports Laboratory, USQ 2013 Building, London 2012 Building, USQ, 2013 80 % RA for concrete slab on ground, structural 1, 6, Concrete block wall from full RA 13 Brick wall from 67% RA19 N/A Use steel mesh produced with Use steel mesh produced with 100% recycled content, floor 100% recycled content, floor and steel sheets of roof 25, 34 and steel sheets of roof 25, 34 N/A Use 40% recycled steel in trusses 24 N/A N/A 80 % RA for concrete slab 80 % RA for concrete slab on on ground, structural 1, 6, ground, structural 1, 6, 100% RA for non-structural Concrete block wall from full Concrete block wall from full RA 13 RA 13 Reduced 20% steel use in design 23 N/A N/A Use steel mesh produced with Use steel mesh produced with 100% recycled content, floor 100% recycled content, floor and steel sheets of roof 25, 34 and steel sheets of roof 25, 34 Use 40% recycled steel in trusses 24 Use 40% recycled steel in trusses 24 Reduced 20% steel use in design 23 Reduced 20% steel use in design 23 Use 60%, recycled timber or FSC certified timber for wall and roof 23 Use 13% recycled tile, tiles with 45% with recycled content 21 Thermal insulation 100% from recycled content in the wall and roof 25 Use 60%, recycled timber or FSC certified timber for wall and roof 23 N/A Use 60%, recycled timber or FSC certified timber for wall and roof 23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Thermal insulation 100% from recycled content in the wall and roof 25 Thermal insulation 100% from recycled content in the wall and roof 25 N/A Thermal insulation 100% from recycled contents in the wall and roof 25 100% replacing PC with GC in concrete slab on ground floor 100% replacing PC with GC in concrete slab on ground floor 26 100% replacing PC with GC in concrete slab on ground floor, concrete block wall 26 100% replacing PC with GC in concrete slab, floor, first floor, concrete block wall 26 100% replacing PC with GC in concrete slab on ground floor, concrete block wall 26 Transportation reduced by reuse of recycled materials; Transportation reduced by Transportation reduced by reuse of recycled materials; 32, Transportation reduced by reuse of recycled materials; Transportation reduced by reuse of recycled materials; 32, 35 35 32, 35 Transportation by water; reduced by using local suppliers and materials 19, 30 Transportation reduced by using local suppliers and materials 19, 30 26 Transportation reduced by reuse of recycled materials; 32, 35 32, 35 35 Transportation reduced by using local suppliers and materials 19, 30 Transportation reduced by using local suppliers and materials 19, 30 Transportation reduced by using local suppliers and materials 19, 30 Sources:: 1-(CCAA 2015; Gonzalez-Fonteboa 2005); 2-(GBCA 2008); 6-Chapter Seven; 13-( Portland Cement Australia 2014; Uche 2008; 19-(BDA 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014); 21-(LEED 2014); 23-(GBCA 2008; US Green Building Council 2011); 24-(US Green Building Council 2005); 25-(Greenspec 2015; Steel Construction Information 2014); 26-(Ash Development Association of Australia 2013); 30-( Benn, Dunphy &Griffiths 2014; Learning Legacy 2014); 32-(Allwood et al. 2012; UK Indemand 2014, 2015); 34-(Inhabitat 2014; Steel Construction Information 2014), 35- (DEE 2012) ) RA = Recycled Aggregate, PC = Portland cement, GC = Geopolymer Cement. This Table and data provided by Author. 111 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.2.1 Case study one – Friendly Beaches Lodge The Friendly Beaches Lodge is an environmentally well-known project that was designed by Latona Masterman Pty Ltd (Australia), and built in the Freycinet Peninsula of Tasmania in Australia in 1991. This is a private development on an isolated parcel of freehold costal woodland and heath within a national park. The architect sought to provide a basic standard of accommodation for guests completing a guided three-day bushwalk. Traditional domestic timber floor framing is comprised of hardwood beaters and dried hardwood joists. External decks are elevated and constructed from treated pine decking boards. Walls generally are single-skin timber from air-dried hardwoods and plates with kiln hardwood internal lining boards. The roof is timber framed and covered with single sheet steel (see Figure 7.1). The embodied energy of the floor, wall and roof elements in this construction project were calculated by Lawson (1996). The floor construction system (timber floor) had an implemented embodied energy of 72 MJ/m2 of floor area. The wall construction system (single skin timber wall) had an implemented embodied energy of 32 MJ/m2 of wall area. The roof construction system (timber frame with single steel sheet covering) had an implemented embodied energy of 230 MJ/m2 of roof area (Lawson 1996). Using this basic data, the research model was applied to this case study, and calculations made of potential reductions in carbon emissions. Detailed calculations are presented in Appendix C, and a summary of potential and generated (i.e. actual) carbon emissions of construction are presented in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 respectively for the floor systems; in Tables 7.4 and 7.5 respectively for the wall construction systems; and Tables 7.6 and 7.7 respectively for the roof construction systems. 112 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Figure 7.1: Friendly Beaches Lodge, Tasmania Source: Trip Advisor (2014) Location: Battery Point, Freycinet Peninsula National Park, Tasmania 7215 Floor construction system: Timber floor Wall construction system: Single skin timber wall Roof construction system: Timber frame, steel sheet roof Principal architects: Latona Masterman Pty Ltd. Australia Construction completed 1991 Bioclimatic conditions of Case Study One Reuse, recycle, material resources, suppliers, transport Recycled 80% recycled aggregate assumed aggregates in to be used for concrete material Recycled aggregate assumed to production be used for brick Steel from Steel and steel mesh assumed to recycled be used from average recycled contents content (Steel Construction Information 2014) Reuse construction materials Reuse recycled bricks Use recycled softwood Use recycled thermal insulation Use roof tiles from recycled tiles (LEED 2014) Geopolymer, fly Geopolymer cement replaces ash and cement Portland cement substitute Transportation Reduce transportation by reduction (re)using recycled materials Material Construction material resources resources and are inside the park, the saved suppliers distance is 80km, supplier is 237 km and local supplier is 157km (Devonport, Tasmania) 7.2.2 Case Study Two – ACF Green Home The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) Green Home is a well-known project designed by Taylor Oppenheim Architects, and built in Roxburgh Park in Victoria in 1992. This display home was constructed for the Victorian Department of Planning and Housing in accordance with environmental guidelines prepared by the ACF. The objectives were to create a building for the home market which demonstrated various ways of conserving energy in the day-to-day running of a house, as well as the use of materials selected on the basis of minimum embodied energy. The ground floor is a concrete slab. Fly ash was incorporated in the concrete mix as a partial cement substitute. The slab was poured over a waterproof membrane manufactured from 70 per cent recycled material. The reinforcing steel was made entirely from recycled materials. The upper floor is constructed in pine framing with a timber floor. External walls are constructed with planation pine timber framing and a clay brick veneer. The roofs are framed in Radiata pine, and concrete tiles are fixed over aluminium foil sarking. 113 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data The embodied energy of the floor, wall and roof elements in this construction project were calculated by Lawson (1996). The floor construction system (concrete slab ground floor, timber framed upper floor) had an implemented embodied energy of 537 MJ/m2 of floor area. The wall construction system (timber framed brick veneer wall) had an implemented embodied energy of 595 MJ/m2 of wall area. The roof construction system (timber frame, concrete tile roof) had an implemented embodied energy of 226 MJ/m2 of roof area (Lawson 1996). Using this basic data, the research model was applied to this case study, and calculations made of potential reductions in carbon emissions. Detailed calculations are presented in Appendix C, and a summary of potential and generated (i.e. actual) carbon emissions of construction are presented in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 respectively for the floor systems; in Tables 7.4 and 7.5 respectively for the wall construction systems; and Tables 7.6 and 7.7 respectively for the roof construction systems. Figure 7.2: ACF Green Home, Roxburgh Park Victoria Source: Environmental Design Guide (EDG 2014) Location: ACF Green Home, Roxburgh Park Victoria 3064 Floor construction system: Concrete slab floor, timber framed upper floor Wall construction system: timber framed brick veneer walls Roof construction system: timber Frame, concrete tile roof Principal architects: Taylor Oppenheim Architects, Pty Ltd, Australia Construction completed 1992 114 Bioclimatic conditions of Case Study Two Reuse, recycle, materials resources, suppliers, transport Recycled 80% recycled aggregate aggregate in assumed to be used for concrete Recycled aggregate assumed to materials be used for brick production Steel from Steel and steel mesh assumed to recycled be used from average recycled content content Reuse Reuse recycled bricks construction Use recycled softwood materials Use recycled thermal insulation Use roof tiles from recycled tiles Geopolymer fly ash Geopolymer cement replaces Portland cement Transportation reduction Material resources and suppliers) Reduce transportation by (re)using recycled materials Construction materials resources are local, then the saved distance is 54.2 km (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014), and local supplier is Boral concrete Somerton (Boral 2014) Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.2.3 Case Study Three – Display Project Home The Display Project House in Canberra was commissioned by the Energy Research and Development Corporation (ERDC) to demonstrate the application of energysaving design measures within a house design which successfully conforms to project home style. The home was designed by Jen-Vue Homes in Ginninderra in the Australian Capital Territory, and construction completed in 1993. The external envelope of the house deliberately used conventional materials and technologies, including a concrete ground slab, brick veneer external walls, and a metal deck roof. The embodied energy of the floor, wall and roof elements in this construction project were calculated by Lawson (1996). The floor construction system (concrete slab) had an implemented embodied energy of 841 MJ/m2 of floor area. The wall construction system (timber framed brick veneer) had an implemented embodied energy of 570 MJ/m2 of wall area. The roof construction system (timber frame steel sheet roof) had an implemented embodied energy of 474 MJ/m2 of roof area (Lawson 1996). Using this basic data, the research model was applied to this case study, and calculations made of potential reductions in carbon emissions. Detailed calculations are presented in Appendix C, and a summary of potential and generated (i.e. actual) carbon emissions of construction are presented in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 respectively for the floor systems; in Tables 7.4 and 7.5 respectively for the wall construction systems; and Tables 7.6 and 7.7 respectively for the roof construction systems. 115 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Figure 7.3: Display Project Home, Ginninderra, ACT Source: Lawson (1996) Location: Ginninderra, 2913 ACT Floor construction system: Concrete slab Wall construction system: timber framed brick veneer walls Roof construction system: timber frame steel sheet roof Principal architects: Jen-Vue Homes Pty Ltd, Australia Construction completed 1994 Bioclimatic conditions of Case Study Three Reuse, recycle, materials resources, suppliers, transport Recycled 80% recycled aggregate assumed to aggregate in be used for concrete materials Recycled aggregate assumed to be production used for brick Steel from 100% steel and steel mesh assumed recycled to be used from average recycled content content Reuse Reuse recycled bricks construction Use recycled hardwood bearers and materials joists Use recycled thermal insulation Geopolymer, Geopolymer cement replaces fly ash Portland cement Transportation Reduced transportation by reduction reusing/recycling, and transportation by rail or water when required. Material Construction materials from resources and interstate (Thylacine 2014) and suppliers local supplier is Skyline, the saved distance is 25.2 for local, but the main supplier is over 100km (Port Jackson 2014) 7.2.4 Case Study Four – Civil Engineering Laboratory, USQ The Civil Engineering Laboratory building at the University of Southern Queensland’s Springfield campus was designed by Wilson Architects in Brisbane, and was completed in 2013. The floor construction system uses a concrete slab on ground. The wall construction system uses cored concrete blocks. The roof construction system is steel framed with steel roof Colorbond sheeting. Data for this building was obtained directly from the USQ campus services management section. Using this basic data, the research model was applied to this case study, and calculations made of potential reductions in carbon emissions. Detailed calculations are presented in Appendix C, and a summary of potential and generated (i.e. actual) carbon emissions of construction are presented in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 respectively for the floor systems; in Tables 7.4 and 7.5 respectively for the wall construction systems; and Tables 7.6 and 7.7 respectively for the roof construction systems. 116 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Figure 7.4: Civil Engineering Laboratory, USQ Source: Author Location: Civil Engineering Laboratory, Springfield Central 4300 Floor construction system: concrete slab Wall construction system: concrete block walls Roof construction system: steel frame, steel sheet Roof (Stramit Speed Deck; 0.48 BMT Colorbond steel sheet roof) Principal architects: Wilson Architects, Brisbane Construction completed in 2013 Bioclimatic conditions of Case Study Four Reuse, recycle, materials resources, suppliers, transport Recycled 80% recycled aggregate aggregates in assumed to be used for concrete material Recycled aggregate assumed to production be used for concrete block Steel from 100% steel and steel mesh recycled assumed to be used from content average recycled content Reduce Reduced materials in structural material use design 20% in design Reuse Reuse recycled trusses construction Use recycled thermal insulation materials or with recycled content Geopolymer, Geopolymer cement replaces fly ash and Portland cement cement substitute Transportation By reusing and recycling, reduction by transportation was reduced reuse, recycle, Transported when necessary by sustainable rail or water transportation mode Construction material resources are inside of state, saved Material distance is 44.9 km (Global resources and 2014), for local supplier is suppliers 32.3km (BIG Mate 2014; Nuway 2014) 7.2.5 Case Study Five – London Olympic Velodrome Building This project was constructed on 246 hectares of previously heavily contaminated industrial land – thus, around 700,000 cubic metres of soil was cleaned and reclaimed. Additionally, around 98 per cent of construction materials were recycled from the site’s demolished buildings, including a glue factory, a chemical works, and an oil refinery. Final implementation achieved 38 per cent lower carbon emissions than in the original design (CNN 2012; Smith, 2012). Using construction data from a variety of sources (Rodway 2010; Inventory of Carbon & Energy 2011; Bull 2012; Smith 2012), the research model was applied to this case study, and calculations made of potential reductions in carbon emissions. Detailed calculations are presented in Appendix C, and a summary of potential and generated (i.e. actual) carbon emissions of construction are presented in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 respectively for the floor systems; in Tables 7.4 and 7.5 respectively for the 117 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data wall construction systems; and Tables 7.6 and 7.7 respectively for the roof construction systems. Figure 7.5: Olympic Velodrome Building, London Source: London Olympics (2012) Location: Olympic Park, London Floor construction system: Concrete slab floor, concrete upper floor Wall construction system: concrete block walls, steel frame timber wall Roof construction system: steel frame, fabric roof (commercial) Principal architects: Jonathan Watts, George Oates, Hopkins, Olympic Park London Construction completed in 2012 Bioclimatic conditions of Case Study Five Reuse, recycle, materials resources, suppliers and transport Aggregates 80% recycled aggregate was for concrete used in the concrete (Ingenia 2014) Steel and 100% steel and steel mesh was steel mesh used from average recycled content (Steel Construction Information 2014) Reduce Reduced materials in structural material use design 20% in design Reuse Reuse of leftover gas pipes for construction construction of the Olympic materials stadium’s ring beam (Karven 2012) Reuse softwood from local salvage/re-use centre (JLL 2012) Geopolymer, Geopolymer cement replaces fly ash and Portland cement cement substitute Transportation By reusing and recycling, reduction by transportation was reduced reuse, recycle, Transported when necessary was sustainable by rail or water (London transportation Olympics 2012) mode Material Construction material suppliers resources and are outside London, thus distance suppliers is more than 100km (Aggregate Industries 2014) 7.2.6 Case Study Six – Multi Sports Building, USQ The multi sports building at the University of Southern Queensland’s Springfield campus was designed by Reid Design in Brisbane, and construction was completed in 2013. The floor construction uses a concrete ground slab and a concrete upper floor. The wall systems are cored concrete blocks. The roof construction is steel framed with a trussed, steel sheet roof. Data for this building was obtained directly from the USQ campus services management section. Using this basic data, the research model was applied to this case study, and calculations made of potential reductions in carbon emissions. Detailed calculations are presented in Appendix C, and a summary of potential and generated (i.e. actual) carbon emissions of construction are presented in Tables 7.2 118 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data and 7.3 respectively for the floor systems; in Tables 7.4 and 7.5 respectively for the wall construction systems; and Tables 7.6 and 7.7 respectively for the roof construction systems. Figure 7.6: Multi Sports Building, Springfield Source: Author Location: Multi Sports Building, Springfield Central, 4300 Floor construction system: concrete slab floor, concrete upper floor Wall construction system: concrete block Roof construction system: steel parallel cord trussed roof Principal architects: Reid Design Brisbane Construction completed in 2013 Bioclimatic conditions of case study six Reuse, recycle, materials resources, suppliers and transport Recycled 80% recycled aggregate assumed aggregates in to be used for concrete material 100% recycled aggregate assumed to be used for concrete production block Steel from Steel and steel mesh assumed to recycled be used from average recycled content content Reduce Reduced materials in structural material use in design 20% design Reuse Reuse recycled trusses construction Use recycled thermal insulation materials or with recycled content Geopolymer, Geopolymer cement replaces fly ash and Portland cement cement substitute Transportation By reusing and recycling, reduction by transportation was reduced reuse, recycle, Transported when necessary by sustainable rail or water transportation mode Material Construction material resources resources and are within the state, saved suppliers distance is 44.9 km (Global 2014) and for local supplier is 32.3km (BIG Mate 2014) 119 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.3 Case studies – Potential carbon emission reductions in floor, wall and roof construction systems This section identifies the carbon emissions related to the floor, wall and roof construction systems of the case studies during the extraction, materials production and construction processes (stages one to three of the building life cycle), both for each construction system, and then as a whole. The potential carbon emission reductions that could be achieved by application of bioclimatic criteria are presented in Tables 7.2, 7.5 and 7.8 for floor, wall and roof respectively, and for the whole/combined construction systems of the case studies in Table 7.11. There are also percentage calculations of the (potential) carbon emission reductions for the floor, wall and roof construction systems presented in Tables 7.4, 7.7, 7.10 respectively, and for the whole/combined construction systems of the case studies in Table 7.13. This contrasts with Tables 7.3, 7.6 and 7.9 which present the generated carbon emissions of the case studies for floor, wall and roof respectively, and for the whole/combined construction systems of the case studies in Table 7.12. There are also bar graphs that provide a graphical representation of the carbon emissions and results for each construction system of the case studies in Figures 7.7, 7.8 and 7.9 for floor, wall and roof respectively, and one for the whole/combined (floor, wall and roof) construction systems of the case studies in Figure 7.10. These emission generation figures are obtained by subtracting the emission reduction figure for the item concerned from the standard/basic figure in column one of the corresponding table, the result being the generated carbon emission for the item concerned. Figures in each table are compared for Implementation, the Green Star tool, and the research model. Detailed calculations relating to these tables are presented in Appendix C. The tables and figures presented in this section compare data from four sources:  Standard/Basic carbon emissions: Carbon emissions to be expected with no application of green or bioclimatic criteria to the building process. 120 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data  Implemented: The carbon reductions/emissions calculated from implementation (i.e. completion) of the construction element or project concerned  Green Star: The potential carbon reductions/emissions predicted if the criteria of the Green Star tool is applied to a construction system of a given case study.  This research: The potential carbon reductions/emissions predicted if the bioclimatic criteria of the research model are applied to a construction system of a given case study An analysis of the findings is presented in Section 7.3.5. 7.3.1 Case studies – Floor construction systems emissions reduction Tables 7.2 and 7.3 present comparative carbon emission reduction and generation figures for the floor construction systems used in the case studies. Table 7.2: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the floor construction systems of the case studies Standard/Basic Floor construction systems of the case studies 1-Elevated Timber Floor (lowest level) 2-Elevated Timber Floor (upper level) 110 mm Concrete Slab on ground 3- 110 mm Concrete Slab on ground 4-200mm Concrete Slab on ground 5-200mm Hollow Core Precast Concrete Slab 125mm Elevated Concrete Slab temporary frame work 6-110 mm Concrete Slab on ground 125mm Elevated Concrete Slab temporary frame work Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Implementation Reduced or Increased Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Potential Reduction Green Star Potential reduction Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 This Research Potential reduction Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 293 28.71 221 21.65 55.29 5.41 168.82 16.54 147 14.40 -34 -3.33 86.26 8.45 88.92 8.71 645 63.21 108 10.58 209.74 20.55 347.30 34.03 645 63.21 - 196 - 19.2 157.21 15.40 415.06 40.67 908 88.98 - - 262.35 25.71 492.39 48.25 908 88.98 600.70 58.86 283.53 27.49 608.10 59.59 750 73.50 515.60 50.52 259.31 25.41 521.35 51.09 645 63.21 - - 206.68 20.25 382.03 37.44 750 73.50 - - 247.27 24.23 438.98 43.02 Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column represents construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) from values given in Chapter Four; the ‘Implementation’, ‘Green Star’ and ‘This research’ columns are the potential construction carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions as calculated in Appendix C (Tables A.C.-1 ,8, 9, 17, 24, 30, 32, 33, 42, 43, 44, 52, 53). 121 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Table 7.3: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in the floor construction systems of the case studies Standard/Basic Floor construction Embodied Carbon systems of the case Energy Emissions studies of the research MJ/m2 Kg/m2 1-Elevated Timber Floor 293 28.71 (lowest level) 2- Elevated Timber 147 14.40 Floor (upper level) 110 mm Concrete Slab 645 63.21 on ground 3-110 mm Concrete Slab 645 63.21 on ground 4-200mm Concrete Slab 908 88.98 on ground 5-200mm Hollow Core 908 88.98 Precast Concrete Slab 125mm Elevated Concrete Slab temporary 750 73.50 frame work 6-110 mm Concrete Slab 645 63.21 on ground 125mm Elevated Concrete Slab temporary 750 73.50 frame work Implemented Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Green Star This research Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 72 7.06 237.71 23.29 124.18 12.17 113 11.07 60.74 5.95 58.08 5.69 537 52.62 435.26 42.65 297.70 29.17 841 82.41 487.79 47.80 229.94 22.53 - - 645.65 63.27 415.61 40.73 307.3 30.11 624.47 61.49 299.90 29.39 234.4 22.97 490.69 48.08 228.65 22.40 - - 438.32 42.95 262.97 25.77 - - 502.73 49.26 311.02 30.48 Source: ‘Standard/Basic’ column is from values given in Chapter Four; ‘Implementation’, ‘Green Star’ and ‘This Research’ columns are the generated construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) obtained from Table 7.2 (subtract reduction figures from standard/basic figures) The bar graph in Figure 7.7 provides a comparative representation of the generated carbon emissions data for the floor systems of the case studies (as given in Table 7.3). Figure 7.7: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for the floor construction systems of the case studies (using data from Table 7.3) Source: Generated carbon emissions data from Table 7.3 122 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Table 7.4 provides a percentage representation of the potential carbon emission reductions for the case studies using the data from Table 7.2. Table 7.4: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the floor construction systems of the case studies expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.2) Implemented Green Star Reduction 75.4% Reduction 18.8% This Research Reduction 57.6% Increase -23.1% 58.6% 60.4% 16.7 % 32.5% 53.8% Increase- 30.3% 24.3% 64.3% - 28.8% 54.2% 5-200mm Hollow Core Precast Concrete Slab 66.1% 30.8% 66.9% 125mm Elevated Concrete Slab temporary frame work 68.7% 34.5% 69.5% 6-110 mm Concrete Slab on ground - 32% 59.2% 125mm Elevated Concrete Slab temporary frame work - 32.9% 58.5% Floor construction systems of the case studies 1-Elevated Timber Floor (lowest level) 2-Elevated Timber Floor (upper level) 110 mm Concrete Slab on ground 3- 110 mm Concrete Slab on ground 4-200mm Concrete Slab on ground Source: Data from Table 7.2 expressed in percentage form. Highlighting indicates reference to figures in the discussion in Section 7.3.5. 123 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.3.2 Case studies – Wall construction systems emissions reduction Tables 7.5 and 7.6 present comparative carbon emission reduction and generation figures for the wall construction systems used in the case studies. Table 7.5: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the wall construction systems of the case studies Standard/Basic Wall construction systems of the case studies Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 1-Timber Frame, Single Skin Timber Wall 2-Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 3-Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 4-Cavity Concrete Block Wall 5-Cavity Concrete Block Wall Steel Frame, timber w/board Wall 6-Cavity Concrete Block Wall Implementation Reduced or Increased Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Potential Reduction Green Star Potential reduction Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 This Research Potential reduction Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 151 14.79 119 11.66 25.17 2.47 72.71 7.12 561 54.97 -34 - 3.33 21.77 2.13 256.48 25.13 561 54.97 -9 - 0.88 23.44 2.29 257.47 25.23 511 50.07 - - 96.48 9.46 248.34 24.34 511 50.07 336.81 33.01 106.77 10.46 336.81 33.01 238 23.32 134.01 13.13 125.44 12.29 134.01 13.13 511 50.07 - - 96.48 9.45 248.34 24.34 Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column represents construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) from values given in Chapter Four; the ‘Implementation’, ‘Green Star’ and ‘This research’ columns are the potential construction carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions as calculated in Appendix C (Tables A.C. – 3, 4, 12, 13, 19, 20, 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 37, 46, 47, 48, 54, 55) Table 7.6: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in the wall construction systems of the case studies Wall construction systems of the case studies 1-Timber Frame, Single Skin Timber Wall 2-Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 3-Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 4-Cavity Concrete Block Wall 5-Cavity Concrete Block Wall Steel Frame, timber w/board Wall 6-Cavity Concrete Block Wall Standard/Basic Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Implemented Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Green Star This research Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 151 14.79 32 3.1 125.83 12.33 78.29 7.67 561 54.97 595 58.3 539.23 52.84 304.52 29.84 561 54.97 570 55.9 537.56 52.68 303.53 29.74 511 50.07 - - 414.52 40.62 262.66 25.74 511 50.07 174.19 17.07 404.23 39.61 174.19 17.07 238 23.32 103.99 10.19 112.56 11.03 103.99 10.19 511 50.07 - - 414.52 40.62 262.66 25.74 Source: ‘Standard/Basic’ column is from values given in Chapter Four; ‘Implementation’, ‘Green Star’ and ‘This Research’ columns are the generated construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) obtained from Table 7.4 (subtract reduction figures from standard/basic figures) 124 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data The bar graph in Figure 7.8 provides a comparative representation of the generated carbon emissions data for the wall systems of the case studies (as given in Table 7.6). Figure 7.8: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for the wall construction systems of the case studies (using data from Table 7.6) Source: Generated carbon emissions data from Table 7.6 Table 7.7 provides a percentage representation of the potential carbon emission reductions for the case studies using the data from Table 7.2. Table 7.7: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the wall construction systems of the case studies expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.5) Implemented Green Star This Research Reduction Reduction Reduction 78.8% 17.7% 48.1% Increase - 6% 3.8% 45.7% Increase - 1.6% 4.1% 45.8% 4-Cavity Concrete Block Wall - 18.8% 48.6% 5-Cavity Concrete Block Wall 65.9% 20.8% 65.9% Steel Frame, timber w/board Wall 56.3% 52.7% 56.3% Wall construction systems of the case studies 1-Timber Frame, Single Skin Timber Wall 2-Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 3-Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 18.8% 48.6 % Source: Data from Table 7.5 expressed in percentage form. Yellow highlighting indicates reference to figures in the discussion in Section 7.3.5. 6-Cavity Concrete Block Wall 125 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.3.3 Case studies – Roof construction systems emissions reduction Tables 7.8 and 7.9 present comparative carbon emission reduction and generation figures for the roof construction systems used in the case studies. Table 7.8: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the roof construction systems of the case studies Standard/Basic Roof construction systems of the case studies Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Implementation Potential Reduction Green Star This Research Reduced or Increased Potential reduction Potential reduction Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 1-Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 330 32.34 100 9.80 114.48 11.22 144.59 14.17 2-Timber Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 240 23.52 14 1.37 45.16 4.42 91.51 8.97 3-Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 330 32.34 -144 -14.11 114.48 11.22 144.59 14.17 4-Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 401 39.29 - - 145.65 14.28 231.85 22.72 5-Steel Frame, Fabric Roof (commercial) 282 27.63 84.49 8.28 144.72 14.18 6-Steel parallel chord trussed sheet roof 401 39.29 145.65 14.27 231.85 22.72 182.82 17.91 - - Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column represents construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) from values given in Chapter Four; the ‘Implementation’, ‘Green Star’ and ‘This research’ columns are the potential construction carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions as calculated in Appendix C (Tables A.C. – 5, 6, 14, 15, 21, 22, 27, 28, 39, 40, 48, 49, 56) Table 7.9: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in the roof construction systems of the case studies Roof construction systems of the case studies Standard/Basic Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Implemented Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Green Star This research Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 1-Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 330 32.34 230 22.54 215.52 21.12 185.41 18.17 2-Timber Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 240 23.52 226 22.15 194.84 19.09 148.49 14.55 3-Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 330 32.34 474 46.45 215.52 21.12 185.41 18.17 4-Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 401 39.29 - - 255.35 25.02 169.15 16.57 5-Steel Frame, Fabric Roof (commercial) 282 27.63 99.18 9.72 197.51 19.35 137.28 13.45 6-Steel parallel chord trussed sheet roof 401 39.29 - - 255.35 25.02 169.15 16.57 Sources: Standard/Basic’ column is from values given in Chapter Four; ‘Implementation’, ‘Green Star’ and ‘This Research’ columns are the generated construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) obtained from Table 7.6 (subtract reduction figures from standard/basic figures) 126 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data The bar graph in Figure 7.9 provides a comparative representation of the generated carbon emissions data for the roof systems of the case studies (as given in Table 7.9). Figure 7.9: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for the roof construction systems of the case studies (using data from Table 7.9) Source: Generated carbon emissions data from Table 7.9 Table 7.10 provides a percentage representation of the potential carbon emission reductions for the case studies using the data from Table 7.8 Table 7.10: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the roof construction systems of the case studies expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.8) Roof construction systems of the case studies 1-Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 2-Timber Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 3-Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 4-Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 5-Steel Frame, Fabric Roof (commercial) 6-Steel parallel chord trussed sheet roof Implemented Green tool This Research Reduction Reduction Reduction 30.3% 34.6% 43.8% 5.8% 18.7% 38.1% Increase - 43.6% 34.6% 43.8% - 36.3% 57.8% 64.8% 29.9% 51.3% - 36.3% 57.8% Source: Data from Table 7.8 expressed in percentage form. Yellow highlighting indicates reference to figures in the discussion in Section 7.3.5. 127 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.3.4 Case studies – Whole construction systems emissions reduction The final summary table presented in this section is for the whole construction system of each case study which collates the figures for the floor, wall and roof construction systems presented in Tables 7.2 to 7.7. The comparative data for potential carbon emission reductions in the six case studies is presented in Table 7.8, and the comparative data for generated carbon emissions is presented in Table 7.9. Table 7.11: Potential construction carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the whole (floor, wall and roof) construction systems of the six case studies Standard/Basic Case studies of the research Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Implementation Reduced or Increased Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Potential Reduction Green Star Potential reduction Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 This Research Potential reduction Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 774 75.85 440 43.12 194.94 19.10 386.12 37.84 2. ACF Green Home 1623 159.05 122 11.95 276.67 27.11 783.86 76.81 3. Display Project Home 1536 150.52 347 34 295.13 28.92 817.12 80.07 4. Civil Engineering Lab. 1820 178.36 - - 504.48 49.45 972.58 95.31 5. Velodrome Building 2689 263.52 1769.9 173.4 856.54 83.94 1744.99 170.98 1. Friendly Beaches Lodge 2307 226.08 696.08 68.21 1301.20 127.51 Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column represents construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) from values given in Chapter Four; the ‘Implementation’, ‘Green Star’ and ‘This research’ columns are the potential construction carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions as calculated in Appendix C (Tables A.C. – 7, 16, 23, 29, 40, 50, 57) 6. Multi Sports Building Table 7.12: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in the whole (floor, wall and roof) construction systems of the case studies Standard or Basic Case studies of the research Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Implemented Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Green Star This research Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 1. Friendly Beaches Lodge 774 75.85 334 32.73 579.06 56.75 387.88 38.01 2. ACF Green Home 1623 159.05 1501 147.10 1346.33 131.94 839.14 82.23 3. Display Project Home 1536 150.52 1883 184.53 1240.87 121.60 718.88 70.45 4. Civil Engineering Lab. 1820 178.36 - - 1315.52 128.92 847.42 83.04 5. Velodrome Building 2689 263.52 919.1 90.07 1832.46 179.58 944.01 92.51 6. Multi Sports Building 2307 226.08 - - 1610.92 157.87 1005.80 98.57 Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column is from values given in Chapter Four; ‘Implementation’, ‘Green Star’ and ‘This Research’ columns are the generated construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) obtained from Table 7.8 (subtract reduction figures from standard/basic figures) 128 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data The bar graph in Figure 7.10 provides a comparative representation of the generated carbon emissions data for the whole construction systems of the case studies (as given in Table 7.12). Figure 7.10: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for the whole construction systems of the case studies (using data from Table 7.12) Source: Generated carbon emissions data from Table 7.12 Table 7.13 provides a percentage representation of the potential carbon emission reductions for the whole construction systems of the case studies (using the data from Table 7.11). Table 7.13: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for the whole construction systems of the case studies expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.11) Implemented Green tool This Research Reduction Reduction Reduction 1. Friendly Beaches Lodge 56.7% 25.2% 49.8% 2. ACF Green Home 7.5% 17% 48.3% 3. Display Project Home - 22.6% 19.2% 53.2% 4. Civil Engineering Lab - 30% 53.4% 5. The Velodrome Building 65.8% 31.9% 64.9% 6. The Multi Sports Building - 30.2% 56.4% Case studies of the research Source: Data from Table 7.11 expressed in percentage form. Yellow highlighting indicates reference to figures in the discussion in Section 7.3.5. 129 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.3.5 Analysis of data from the floor, wall and roof systems of the case studies In respect to the floor construction systems of the case studies, the bar graph of carbon emissions generated (Figure 7.7) indicates that emissions following application of the research model to the floor systems are consistently lower than for the other three scenarios (standard building practice, at implementation/completion of a floor construction project, and following application of the Green Star tool). Similar trends are seen when the bar graph of generated carbon emissions of the wall and roof construction systems are considered (Figures 7.8 and 7.9). The generated carbon emissions for wall and roof systems are generally lower following application of the bioclimatic criteria in the research model as compared to the standard building practice, on completion of a building, and following application of the Green Star tool. This is also the case for generated emissions for the whole construction systems of the case studies as shown in Figure 7.10. This trend is also seen when carbon reductions are considered. Potential carbon emission reductions data for the floor, wall and roof construction systems of the case studies are presented in Tables 7.4, 7.7 and 7.10 respectively as percentage reductions. There is a similar presentation of percentage data for the combined/whole construction systems of the case studies in Table 7.13. Analysis of these figures indicates that, in all cases, the potential carbon emission reductions are generally higher with application of the research model as compared to the implemented and Green Star results. In analysis of the data presented in the tables and figures in this section, as compared to the carbon emissions from standard building practice, there are generally considerable reductions in construction carbon emissions that can be achieved through use of environmentally-friendly building practices. The highest overall reduction was achieved in the whole construction system of the 2012 Olympics Velodrome building (Case Study 5), at 65.8 per cent (Table 7.13). This was at implementation of the building and presumably reflects the focus on sustainable material usage in the construction of the Velodrome. Application of the criteria in the Green Star tool to the construction process (Table 7.13) again shows significant reductions across all buildings considered in the case 130 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data studies, with the highest at 31.9 percent, again for the Olympic Velodrome (Case Study 5). The figures for the Olympic Velodrome (Case Study 5) are about equal for the implemented and research model reductions (65.8 per cent and 64.9 percent respectively). This Velodrome building was, in fact, implemented by the London Olympic builders to achieve maximum emission reduction during construction, and it obviously has achieved this. It is also noted that the potential carbon emission reduction for the Friendly Beaches Lodge (Case Study 1) as implemented (constructed) is higher than achieved through application of the research model (56.7 per cent compared to 49.8 percent – Table 7.13). This is presumably due to the environmental considerations applied at implementation of the project in this particular case study. Overall, however, the research model using bioclimatic criteria clearly shows the greatest potential for reduction in construction carbon emissions across the six case studies as compared to standard construction carbon emissions and those achievable following application of the Green Star tool. The lowest carbon reduction was 48.3 per cent for the ACF Green Home (Case Study 2), and the highest for the Olympic Velodrome at 64.9 percent for their whole construction systems (Table 7.13). In fact, in many cases, reductions in construction carbon emissions could be approximately doubled by use of the criteria in the research model tool as compared with Green Star and current best practice. In respect to application of the research model’s bioclimatic criteria to the construction systems of the case studies, it is noted that:  For the floor construction systems (Table 7.4), the potential reductions in carbon emissions are between 53.8 and 69.5 per cent, the highest percentage being for the Olympics Velodrome Building’s concrete slab floor (Case Study 5).  For the wall construction systems (Table 7.7), the potential reductions in carbon emissions are between 45.7 and 65.9 per cent, the highest being for the Velodrome Building’s concrete block wall (Case Study 5).  For the roof systems (Table 7.10), the potential reductions in carbon emissions are between 38.1 and 57.8 per cent, the highest being in the Civil 131 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Engineering Lab and the Multi Sports building roof construction systems (Case Studies 4 and 6).  For the combined/whole construction systems (Table 7.13), the potential reductions in carbon emissions are between 48.3 and 64.9 per cent, the highest being for the Velodrome building (Case Study 5). These results are displayed graphically in Figure 7.11 which compares the carbon emission reductions achieved in the case studies at implementation, and then through application of the Green Star tool and the research model tool. From these results, the conclusion can be made that application of the research model to the construction systems of the case studies can achieve potential reduction in carbon emissions of from 50 to 65 per cent. Figure 7.11: Carbon emission reductions in the whole construction systems of the case studies achieved at Implementation, and then by application of the Green Star and the research model tools Source: Data from Table 7.13 132 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data A summary table of the bioclimatic design principles used in the research model, and the percentage potential reductions in carbon emissions of the research compared to those from implantation and green tools is presented in Table 7.14. 133 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Table 7.14: Bioclimatic conditions – current; from best practice with green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM); from this research model (BDP) Bioclimatic Design Principles Through Bioclimatic Principles Current conditions, Implemented Conditions with Green tools G.S., LEED, BRE Conditions in this research (BDP) Concrete from recycled In Australia, there are a number of G.S. and LEED 1-3 points 20-30% RA for structural Fully RA for non-structural purposes; 100% RA for non-structural; 80 % aggregates manufactured and recycled aggregates readily purpose; BRE 20% in 20-40 MPa - no restriction, 100% RA for structural purpose 6 available in certain localities 1 non-structural 2, 18, 36 Concrete block from recycled 24% recycled content of an aggregate G.S., BRE, 40%; US 25% RA structural; 100%, or no natural Aggregate for concrete block fully aggregate concrete block 8 aggregates in non-structural 18,23,36 from recycled aggregate 13 16, 23 Brick from recycled aggregates Current level of recycled material content in G.S. 30% ; LEED 20%; BRE 11% ISO, up to 10 points Reuse recycled aggregate for brick, brick is 11% 14,41 for 10% Recycled aggregate 14,16,36 67% 19 Steel from average recycled G.S. Mat-6, 60%; LEED 65-97.5%; BRE, Mat-6, 60%; Primary typically 10-15% of scrap steel Steel from fully post-consumer content 97.5% beams, plates; 65% bars; 66% steel deck postrecycled content Secondary 100% scrap based production 25, 34 23,16,38 consumer recycled content Reuse recycled and postG.S., 95% Joinery, 50% structural framing, roofing; LEED Scaffolding, formwork, sheet piles, etc., Use 40% recycled and post-consumer consumer structural and non75-100% existing wall, floor, roof; BRE, Mat-6, 60% 32, 34 steel elements London Olympic Stadium 3,5,23,24 structural steel recycled content Reduce material use in steel Some of the current green projects have G.S., Mat-6, 10-20% one point; LEED, eliminating need for Reduced materials use in structural structural design 10-20% reduced materials use in design 10-20% 23 materials in the design stage; BRE reduced, avoiding overdesign 10-20% design 23,21,10,7,32 Reuse the recycled timber and FSC works in 80 countries, 24000 FSC chain G.S. 95% re-used, post-consumer; FSC certified timber; up 60% of all timber products re-used, post-consumer FSC timber of custody certificates are active in 107 to 3 points; LEED, 50% FSC; BRE, 3 points, postpost-consumer recycled timber; FSC certified timber countrie.23, consumer waste stream 22, 23, 32,24,29 Roof tile from recycled tile In some countries materials such as concrete G.S. Mat-5, 1 point, no natural aggregates are used; LEED, 50% Roof tile from recycled roof tiles, are removed separated and recycled from the waste, up to3.5 points, BRE, M03, from the waste aggregate 21 20,21,23,36 44, 45 stream; Thermal insulation from Thermal insulation is fully recyclable, i.e. G.S. 80% advised; LEED MR4 20%, ½ point, BRE 80%, 1 Thermal insulation from fully recycled content wool content31 point, responsibly sourced 12,7,27,37 recycled waste 25 Portland cement replaced with Geopolymer has been used structural, nonG.S. 60% In situ concrete; 40% precast 30% stressed Geopolymer based cement fully Geopolymer based cement structural, University GCI in Qld, Wellcamp concrete; LEED, 30% structural; no limit others, BRE, replaces Portland cement, arranged for Airport, Qld 46,47,48 responsibly sourced cement 23,26,7 non-structural, structural Reduce transportation by National Waste Policy Australia advice to Green tools credit the reusing and recycling of up to 40% of Reuse considered in material reusing and recycled materials reduce waste, re-use to reduce environmental materials, not directly credited; obtained from30km radius production and building elements 35 2,15,35,37 impacts of the site Transportation by water or rail 15% of bricks are transported to LEED, Regional Materials, up to 2 points 14 Tools advise not truck, reduce transportation the distributor’s yard or jobsite by rail and Localizing has been considered localizing, using water and rail instead of road 215 by localizing 85% by truck 19, 30 CONSTRUCTION CARBON EMISSIONS REDUCTION CASE STUDIES: IMPLEMENTATION  BETWEEN -23% AND 57% CASE STUDIES: GREEN TOOL  POTENTIAL BETWEEN 17 TO 32 % CASE STUDIES: RESEARCH MODEL POTENTIAL BETWEEN 50 AND 65 % References and detailed information of this table is presented in Table A.D.3 | RA = Recycled Aggregate, From Author 134 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.4 General Australian floor, wall and roof construction systems – Potential carbon emission reductions In this section, the research model and Green Star criteria are applied to the general Australian construction systems of floor, wall and roof (i.e. construction systems unrelated to the case studies). The bioclimatic criteria applied are summarised in Table 7.15. The potential carbon emission reductions achievable by application of bioclimatic criteria to the floor, wall and roof of general Australian construction systems are presented in Tables 7.16, 7.19 and 7.22 respectively. There are also percentage calculations of the potential carbon emission reductions for the floor, wall and roof construction systems presented in Tables 7.18, 7.21 and 7.24 respectively for floor, wall and roof systems. This contrasts with Tables 7.17, 7.20 and 7.23 which present the generated construction carbon emissions for floor, wall and roof respectively. These figures are obtained by subtracting the emission reduction figure for the item concerned from the standard/basic figure in column one of the corresponding table, the result being the generated carbon emission for the item concerned. Figures in each table are compared for the Green Star tool and the research model. Detailed calculations relating to these tables are presented in Appendix C. The tables and figures presented in this section compare data from three sources:  Standard/Basic carbon emissions: Carbon emissions to be expected with no application of green or bioclimatic criteria to the building process.  Green Star: The potential carbon reductions/emissions predicted if the criteria of the Green Star tool is applied to a given construction system.  This research: The potential carbon reductions/emissions predicted if the bioclimatic criteria of the research model are applied An analysis of the findings is presented in Section 7.4.4. 135 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Table 7.15: Bioclimatic criteria examined in general Australian floor, wall and roof construction systems using the research model and the Green Star rating tool A.1 Floor construction systems Bioclimatic criteria Concrete from recycled aggregates Study 80% RA for fixing posts in the ground 1 Green 20% RA for fixing posts in Star the ground 2 Concrete block and brick from recycled aggregate Brick from recycled aggregate A.3. Roof construction systems 80 % RA for concrete slab on ground 1 80 % RA for concrete slab on ground 1 20 % RA for fixing posts in the ground 2 20 % RA for fixing posts in the ground 2 Study - Concrete block wall from (67100%) RA 3 - Green Star - Concrete block wall from 20% RA 3 - Study Brick from 67% RA for posts Brick wall from 67% RA 4 Study - Use recycled bricks %60 4 Green Star Steel from average recycled content A.2. Wall construction systems Use steel produced with 100% recycled content 8,13 Use steel produced with 100% recycled content 8,13 Use steel produced with 100% recycled content 8,13 Green Use steel produced with 90% Use steel produced with 90% Use steel produced with 90% Star recycled content 6,7 recycled content 6,7 recycled content 6,7 Reuse recycled and post-consumer structural and nonstructural steel Reduce material (steel) use in design 10-20% Reuse 40% recycled steel in Study structural and non-structural elements 31,32 Green Star Reuse 40% recycled steel in structural and non-structural elements 31,32 - Reuse 40% recycled steel in the structural and non-structural elements 31,32 - - Reduced 20% steel use in design 12, 14 Reduced 20% steel use in design 12, 14 Reduced 20% steel use in design 12, 14 Green Reduced 20% steel use in Star design, 15,16, 5, 6, 12 Reduced 20% steel use in design, 15,16, 5, 6, 12 Reduced 20% steel use in design, 15,16, 5, 6, 12 Study Reuse recycled timber Study and post-consumer FSC certified timber Use 100%, recycled timber or Use 100%, recycled timber or Use 100%, recycled timber or FSC certified timber, reuse 6, FSC certified timber, reuse 6, FSC certified timber, reuse 6, 17 17 17 Use 100%, recycled timber or Use 100%, recycled timber or Use 100%, recycled timber or Green FSC certified timber, reuse 6, FSC certified timber, reuse 6, FSC certified timber, reuse 6, 7, Star 7, 12, 18, 19 7, 12, 18, 19 12, 18, 19 Roof tile from recycled tiles Study - - Use 13% recycled tile, tiles with 45% recycled content 5, 20 Green Star - - - Thermal insulation Study from recycled content - Green Star - Replaced Portland cement with geopolymer cement Study Thermal insulation 100% from recycled content 8 - Thermal insulation 100% from recycled content 8 - Replace 100% of Portland Replace 100% of Portland Replace 100% of Portland cement with geopolymer 12, 21 cement with geopolymer 12, 21 cement with geopolymer 12, 21 Replace 60% of Portland Green cement with geopolymer 6 ,9, Star 22 Replace 60% of Portland cement with geopolymer 6 ,9, Replace 60% of Portland cement with geopolymer 6 ,9, 22 22 References, specifications and detailed information relating to this table are presented in Table A.D.4 (Appendix D). (RA = Recycled Aggregates) 136 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.4.1 Potential emission reductions in general Australian floor construction systems Tables 7.16 and 7.17 present comparative carbon emission reduction and generation figures for general Australian floor construction systems. Table 7.16: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for general Australian floor construction systems Potential Reduction Standard /Basic Green Star This research General Australian floor construction Embodied Carbon Embodied Carbon Embodied Carbon systems Energy Energy MJ/m2 Emissions Kg/m2 MJ/m2 a-Elevated Timber Floor (lowest level) 293 28.7 45.6 4.46 146.58 14.36 b-Elevated Timber Floor (upper level) 147 14.4 84.60 8.29 84.60 8.29 c-110 mm Concrete Slab on ground 645 63.21 194.70 19.08 291.46 28.56 d-125mm Elevated Concrete Slab (temporary framework) 750 73.5 234.76 23.01 344.72 33.78 e-110mm Elevated Concrete Slab (permanent framework) 665 65.17 218.14 21.37 292.3 28.64 f- 200mm Precast Concrete Tee Beam/Infill flooring 602 59 238.46 23.36 273.50 26.80 Emissions Kg/m2 Energy MJ/m2 Emissions Kg/m2 g-200mm Hollow Core Precast Concrete 908 88.98 249.05 24.40 383.07 37.54 flooring Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column represents construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) from values given in Chapter Four; the ‘Green Star’ and ‘This research’ columns are the potential construction carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions as calculated in Appendix C (Tables A.C.58-A.C.69) Table 7.17: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in the general Australian floor construction systems Standard Green Star This research /Basic General Australian floor construction Embodied Carbon Embodied Carbon Embodied Carbon systems Energy Energy MJ/m2 Emissions Kg/m2 MJ/m2 a-Elevated Timber Floor (lowest level) 293 28.7 247.4 24.24 146.42 14.34 b-Elevated Timber Floor (upper level) 147 14.4 62.4 6.11 62.4 6.11 c-110 mm Concrete Slab on ground 645 63.21 450.30 44.12 353.54 34.64 d-125mm Elevated Concrete Slab (temporary framework) 750 73.5 515.24 50.49 405.28 39.71 e-110mm Elevated Concrete Slab (permanent framework) 665 65.17 446.86 43.79 373 36.55 f- 200mm Precast Concrete Tee Beam/Infill flooring 602 59 363.54 35.62 328.5 32.19 Emissions Kg/m2 Energy MJ/m2 Emissions Kg/m2 g-200mm Hollow Core Precast Concrete 908 88.98 658.95 64.57 524.91 51.44 flooring Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column is from values given in Chapter Four; the ‘Green Star’ and ‘This Research’ columns are the generated construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) obtained from Table 7.16 (subtract reduction figures from standard/basic figures) 137 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data The bar graph in Figure 7.12 provides a comparative representation of the generated carbon emissions data for general Australian floor systems (as given in Table 7.17). Figure 7.12: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for general Australian floor construction systems (using data from Table 7.17) Source: Generated carbon emissions data from Table 7.17 Table 7.18 provides a percentage representation of the potential carbon emission reductions that can be achieved in general Australian floor construction systems by application of the Green star and research model tools (using data from Table 7.16). Table 7.18: Potential carbon emission reductions in general Australian floor construction systems expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.16) Green Star This research Carbon Emissions Kg/m2 Carbon Emissions Kg/m2 a-Elevated Timber Floor (lowest level) 15.56% 50.02% b-Elevated Timber Floor (upper level) 57.55% 57.55% c-110 mm Concrete Slab on ground 30.18% 45.17% d-125mm Elevated Concrete Slab (temporary framework) 31.30% 45.96% e-110mm Elevated Concrete Slab (permanent framework) 32.80% 43.95% f- 200mm Precast Concrete Tee Beam/Infill flooring 39.61% 45.43% g-200mm Hollow Core Precast Concrete flooring 27.42% 33.37% General Australian floor construction systems Sources: Data from Table 7.16 expressed in percentage form. Yellow highlighting indicates reference to figures in the discussion in Section 7.4.4. 138 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.4.2 Potential emission reductions in general Australian wall construction systems Tables 7.19 and 7.20 present comparative carbon emission reduction and generation figures for general Australian wall construction systems. Table 7.19: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for general Australian wall construction systems Standard /Basic General Australian wall construction systems Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Potential Reduction Green Star This research Embodied Carbon Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 MJ/m2 Kg/m2 a-Timber Frame, Single Skin Timber Wall 151 14.8 40.36 3.95 41.36 4.05 b-Timber Frame, Timber Weatherboard Wall 188 18.4 71.06 6.96 107.01 10.48 c-Timber Frame, Reconstituted Timber Weatherboard Wall 377 36.9 287.73 28.19 320.03 31.36 d-Timber Frame, Fiber Cement W/board Wall 169 16.6 35.53 3.48 70.60 6.91 e-Timber Frame, Steel Clad Wall 336 32.9 114.46 11.21 157.32 15.41 f-Steel Frame, Steel Clad Wall 425 41.7 143.45 14.05 234.53 22.98 g-Timber Frame, Aluminium W/board Wall 403 39.5 266.10 26.07 310.03 30.38 h-Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 561 63.8 19.80 1.94 191.60 18.77 i-Steel Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 650 63.7 78.72 7.71 154.99 15.18 j-Timber Frame, Concrete Block Veneer Wall 361 35.4 76.69 7.51 131.95 12.93 k-Steel Frame, Concrete Block Veneer Wall 453 44.4 121.41 11.89 228.58 22.40 l-Steel Frame, timber weatherboard Wall 238 23.3 134.82 13.21 222.64 21.81 m-Cavity Clay Brick Wall 860 84.3 29.15 2.85 340.07 33.32 n-Cavity Concrete Block Wall 465 45.6 145.15 14.22 256.18 25.10 o-Single Skin Stabilised Rammed Earth Wall 405 39.7 95.76 9.38 273.72 26.82 p-Single Skin Aerated Concrete Block(AAC)wall 440 43.1 40.55 3.97 74.10 7.26 q-Single Skin Cored Concrete Block Wall 317 31.1 56.30 5.51 103.71 10.16 r-Steel Frame, Compressed Fibre Cement Clad Wall 385 37.7 158.70 15.55 282.34 27.67 s-Hollow-Core Precast Concrete Wall 729 71.4 187.60 18.38 298.76 28.2 t-Tilt-up Precast Concrete Wall 818 80.1 224.02 21.95 356.95 34.98 u-Porcelain-Enamelled Steel Curtain Wall 865 84.8 480.92 47.11 523.09 51.26 v-Glass Curtain Wall 770 75.5 451.42 44.23 492.09 48.22 w-Steel Faced Sandwich Panel Wall 1087 106.5 197.05 19.31 218.24 21.38 x-Aluminium Curtain Wall 935 91.6 722.19 70.77 802.44 78.63 Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column represents construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) from values given in Chapter Four; the ‘Green Star’ and ‘This research’ columns are the potential construction carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions as calculated in Appendix C (Tables A.C.71-A.C.118) 139 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Table 7.20: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in general Australian wall construction systems Standard /Basic General Australian Wall construction Embodied Carbon systems Energy Emissions Green Star Embodied Carbon Emissions Kg/m2 This research Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Energy MJ/m2 a-Timber Frame, Single Skin Timber Wall 151 14.8 110.64 10.84 109.64 10.74 b-Timber Frame, Timber Weatherboard Wall 188 18.4 116.94 11.46 80.99 7.93 c-Timber Frame, Reconstituted Timber Weatherboard Wall 377 36.9 89.27 8.74 56.97 5.58 d-Timber Frame, Fiber Cement W/board Wall 169 16.6 133.47 13.08 98.40 9.64 e-Timber Frame, Steel Clad Wall 336 32.9 251.54 24.65 178.68 17.51 f-Steel Frame, Steel Clad Wall 425 41.7 281.55 27.53 190.47 18.66 g-Timber Frame, Aluminium W/board Wall 403 39.5 136.90 13.41 92.97 9.11 h-Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 561 63.8 541.20 53.03 369.40 36.20 i-Steel Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 650 63.7 571.28 55.98 495.01 48.51 j-Timber Frame, Concrete Block Veneer Wall 361 35.4 284.31 27.86 229.05 22.44 k-Steel Frame, Concrete Block Veneer Wall 453 44.4 331.59 32.49 224.42 21.99 l-Steel Frame, timber weatherboard Wall 238 23.3 103.18 10.09 15.36 1.50 m-Cavity Clay Brick Wall 860 84.3 830.85 81.42 519.93 50.95 n-Cavity Concrete Block Wall 465 45.6 319.85 31.34 208.82 20.46 o-Single Skin Stabilised Rammed Earth Wall 405 39.7 309.24 30.30 131.28 12.86 p-Single Skin Aerated Concrete Block(AAC)wall 440 43.1 399.45 39.14 365.90 35.85 q-Single Skin Cored Concrete Block Wall 317 31.1 260.70 25.54 213.29 20.89 r-Steel Frame, Compressed Fibre Cement Clad Wall 385 37.7 226.30 26.09 101.66 9.96 s-Hollow-Core Precast Concrete Wall 729 71.4 541.40 44.23 430.24 42.16 t-Tilt-up Precast Concrete Wall 818 80.1 593.98 58.21 461.05 45.18 u-Porcelain-Enamelled Steel Curtain Wall 865 84.8 384.08 37.63 431.91 42.32 v-Glass Curtain Wall 770 75.5 318.58 31.22 277.91 27.23 w-Steel Faced Sandwich Panel Wall 1087 106.5 889.95 87.21 868.76 85.13 x-Aluminium Curtain Wall 935 91.6 212.81 20.85 132.56 12.98 Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column is from values given in Chapter Four; the ‘Green Star’ and ‘This Research’ columns are the generated construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) obtained from Table 7.20 (subtract reduction figures from standard/basic figures) 140 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data The bar graph in Figure 7.13 provides a comparative representation of the generated carbon emissions data for general Australian wall construction systems (as given in Table 7.17). Figure 7.13: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for general Australian wall construction systems (using data from Table 7.20) Source: Generated carbon emissions using data from Table 7.20 141 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Table 7.21 provides a percentage representation of the potential carbon emission reductions that can be achieved in general Australian wall construction systems by application of the Green star and research model tools (using data from Table 7.19). Table 7.21: Potential carbon emission reductions in general Australian wall construction systems expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.19) General Australian wall construction systems Green Star Carbon Emissions Kg/m2 This research Carbon Emissions Kg/m2 a-Timber Frame, Single Skin Timber Wall 26.72% 27.39% b-Timber Frame, Timber Weatherboard Wall 37.79% 56.92% c-Timber Frame, Reconstituted Timber Weatherboard Wall 76.32% 84.88% d-Timber Frame, Fiber Cement W/board Wall 21.02% 41.77% e-Timber Frame, Steel Clad Wall 34.06% 46.82 % f-Steel Frame, Steel Clad Wall 33.75% 55.18% g-Timber Frame, Aluminium W/board Wall 66.02% 76.39% h-Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 3.52% 34.15% i-Steel Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall 12.11% 23.84% j-Timber Frame, Concrete Block Veneer Wall 21.24% 36.55% k-Steel Frame, Concrete Block Veneer Wall 26.80% 50.45% l-Steel Frame, timber weatherboard Wall 56.64% 93.54% m-Cavity Clay Brick Wall 3.38% 39.54% n-Cavity Concrete Block Wall 31.23% 55.09% o-Single Skin Stabilised Rammed Earth Wall 23.64% 67.58% p-Single Skin Aerated Concrete Block(AAC)wall 9.21% 16.84% q-Single Skin Cored Concrete Block Wall 17.76% 32.71% r-Steel Frame, Compressed Fibre Cement Clad Wall 41.22% 73.33% s-Hollow-Core Precast Concrete Wall 25.73% 40.98% t-Tilt-up Precast Concrete Wall 27.38% 43.63% u-Porcelain-Enamelled Steel Curtain Wall 55.59% 60.74% v-Glass Curtain Wall 58.62% 63.90% w-Steel Faced Sandwich Panel Wall 18.12% 20.07% x-Aluminium Curtain Wall 72.23% 85.82% Sources: Data from Table 7.19 expressed in percentage form. Yellow highlighting indicates reference to figures in the discussion in Section 7.4.4. 142 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.4.3 Potential emission reductions in general Australian roof construction systems Tables 7.22 and 7.23 present comparative carbon emission reduction and generation figures for general Australian roof construction systems. Table 7.22: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions for general Australian roof construction systems Standard /Basic General Australian roof construction Embodied Carbon systems Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Potential Reduction Green Star Embodied Energy MJ/m2 Carbon Emissions Kg/m2 This research Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 a-Timber Frame, Timber Shingle Roof 151 14.8 48.45 4.74 68.57 6.71 b-Timber Frame, Fiber Cement Shingle Roof 291 28.5 40.85 4.00 74.10 7.26 c-Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 330 32.3 109.47 10.72 137.32 13.46 d-Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 483 47.3 178.57 17.49 232.29 31.68 e-Timber Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 240 23.5 45.16 4.42 74.10 7.26 f-Steel Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 450 44.1 97.64 9.56 191.49 18.76 g-Timber Frame, Terracotta Tile Roof 271 26.6 45.16 4.42 78.59 7.70 h-Timber Frame, Synthetic Rubber Membrane Roof 386 37.8 45.16 4.42 60.57 5.93 i-Concrete Slab, Synthetic Rubber Membrane Roof 1050 102.9 258.71 25.35 393.11 38.52 j-Steel Frame, Fibre Cement Sheet Roof 337 33 55.44 5.43 149.55 14.65 k-Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof (commercial) 401 39.3 145.65 14.27 230.20 22.56 Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column represents construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) from values given in Chapter Four; the ‘Green Star’ and ‘This research’ columns are the potential construction carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions as calculated in Appendix C (Tables A.C.119 – A.C.140). 143 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Table 7.23: Carbon emissions (embodied energy) generated in general Australian roof construction systems Standard /Basic General Australian roof construction systems Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Green Star Embodied Energy MJ/m2 Carbon Emissions Kg/m2 This research Embodied Carbon Energy Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 a-Timber Frame, Timber Shingle Roof 151 14.8 102.55 10.04 82.43 8.08 b-Timber Frame, Fiber Cement Shingle Roof 291 28.5 250.15 24.51 216.9 21.25 c-Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 330 32.3 220.53 21.61 192.68 18.88 d-Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 483 47.3 339.75 33.29 250.71 24.56 e-Timber Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 240 23.5 194.84 19.09 165.90 16.25 f-Steel Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 450 44.1 385.68 37.79 291.89 28.60 g-Timber Frame, Terracotta Tile Roof 271 26.6 225.84 22.13 192.41 18.85 h-Timber Frame, Synthetic Rubber Membrane Roof 386 37.8 340.84 33.40 325.46 31.89 i-Concrete Slab, Synthetic Rubber Membrane Roof 1050 102.9 791.29 77.54 656.89 64.37 j-Steel Frame, Fibre Cement Sheet Roof 337 33 281.56 27.59 187.45 18.37 k-Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof (commercial) 401 39.3 255.35 25.02 170.80 16.73 Sources: ‘Standard/Basic’ column is from values given in Chapter Four; the ‘Green Star’ and ‘This Research’ columns are the generated construction carbon emissions (embodied energy) obtained from Table 7.24 (subtract reduction figures from standard/basic figures) The bar graph in Figure 7.14 provides a comparative representation of the generated carbon emissions data for general Australian roof systems (as given in Table 7.23). 144 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data Figure 7.14: Bar graph of carbon emissions generated for general Australian roof construction systems (using data from Table 7.23) Source: Generated carbon emissions using data from Table 7.23 Table 7.24 provides a percentage representation of the potential carbon emission reductions that can be achieved in general floor construction systems by application of the Green star and research model tools (using data from Table 7.22). Table 7.24: Potential carbon emission reductions in general Australian roof construction systems expressed as percentages (using data from Table 7.22) Green Star This Research Carbon emissions Carbon emissions General Australian roof construction systems 2 KgCo2/m eq. KgCo2/m2eq. a-Timber Frame, Timber Shingle Roof 32.08% 45.41% b-Timber Frame, Fiber Cement Shingle Roof 14.03% 25.46% c-Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 33.17% 41.61% d-Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof 36.97% 48.09% e-Timber Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 18.81% 30.87% f-Steel Frame, Concrete Tile Roof 21.69% 42.55% g-Timber Frame, Terracotta Tile Roof 16.66% 29.00% h-Timber Frame, Synthetic Rubber Membrane 11.69% 15.69% i-Concrete Slab, Synthetic Rubber Membrane 24.63% 37.43% j-Steel Frame, Fibre Cement Sheet Roof 16.45% 44.37% k-Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof (commercial) 36.32% 57.40% Sources: Data from Table 7.22 expressed in percentage form. Yellow highlighting indicates reference to figures in the discussion in Section 7.4.4. 145 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data 7.4.4 Analysis of data from general Australian floor, wall and roof systems In respect to general Australian floor construction systems, the bar graph (Figure 7.12) of carbon emissions generated indicates that, following application of the research model to the floor systems, generated carbon emissions are consistently lower in comparison to standard building practice and use of the Green Star tool. This trend is also seen when percentage carbon reductions are considered for floor systems as in Table 7.18. The potential carbon emission reductions achieved by application of the Green Star tool ranged from 15.56 to 57.55 per cent. In comparison, the potential carbon emission reductions achieved by application of the bioclimatic criteria of the research tool were higher for all floor systems, ranging from 33.37 to 57.55 per cent. Overall, the research model criteria clearly show the greater potential reduction in carbon emissions for Australian floor construction systems. In respect to general Australian wall construction systems, the bar graph (Figure 7.13) of carbon emissions generated indicates again that the research model consistently produces the lowest emissions. This is confirmed in consideration of percentage emission reductions as shown in Table 7.21, where Green Star emission reductions range from 3.52 to 76.23 per cent, in comparison to application of the research model where the reductions range from 16.84 to 93.54 per cent, and again potential emission reductions are higher for all Australian wall construction systems. Finally, in the case of general Australian roof construction systems, the bar graph (Figure 7.14) confirms that the carbon emissions generated after application of the research model tool are consistently lower than in the other scenarios (standard/basic building practice and the Green Star tool). This trend is confirmed in reference to the percentage emission reductions in Table 7.24. Reductions for use of the Green Star tool range from 11.69 to 36.97 per cent, in comparison to the research model tool where the range is from 15.60 to 57.40 per cent, and again potential emission reductions are higher for all Australian roof construction systems. Overall, application of the research model criteria to an Australian floor, wall or roof construction system consistently produces the potential for the lowest carbon 146 Chapter Seven Results and analysis of the data generation, and thus the highest reductions in carbon emissions when compared to standard building practice (standard/basic) or application of the Green Star tool. This is the case for all items considered within general Australian floor, wall and roof construction systems. 7.5 Summary This chapter has presented and analysed the results of applying the research model’s bioclimatic criteria, first, to elements of the floor, wall and roof construction systems of six selected case studies; and, second, to elements of general Australian floor, wall and roof construction systems. The results have been presented for all systems in numerical, graphical and percentage form, and compared to emissions expected in standard building systems, implemented building systems, and from application of the Australian Green Star rating tool. Analysis of results from all construction systems clearly shows that appropriate application of the bioclimatic criteria of the research model will generally result in reduction of carbon emissions of around 50 to 65 per cent (Table 7.13) in the Case Studies, and 57 to 93 per cent (Tables 7.18, 7.21 and 7.24) in general Australian construction systems, levels which are consistently higher in achievement than current best practice or through use of a green rating tool. 147 Chapter Eight Conclusions CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS BIOCLIMATIC DESIGN PRINCIPLES IN CONSTRUCTION 8.1 Overview The Australian building sector is reported to be one of the largest contributors to Australian greenhouse gas emissions (McKinsey 2008), and thus has the greatest potential for a significant reduction of greenhouse gases as compared to other major emitting sectors (IPCC 2011). This is now of immediate importance given that the Australian Federal Government has agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 (Hasham, Bourke & Cox 2015). The application of bioclimatic design principles within the building life cycle has been explored in this research as one way to achieve this. This final chapter is divided into six sections. Section 8.1 provides the context for this chapter. Section 8.2 presents a discussion on the significance of this study. Section 8.3 details recommendations for the Australian construction sector following on from this research. Section 8.4 makes recommendations for further research. Section 8.5 discusses the limitations of this research project. Finally, Section 8.6 offers some concluding remarks and brings this thesis to a close. 8.2 Significance of this study The use of green rating tools such as the Australian Green Star tool to assist in reduction of the carbon emissions from buildings is well known. However, from personal experience of using this tool, I can attest to the fact that the Green Star tool can be applied to only 5 to 10 per cent of a given building under limited conditions. This is because green tools do not assess and apply the range of criteria inherent in bioclimatic design principles and the research model. With the Green Star tool, it may thus not be possible to include evaluation of all the sustainability features present in a given construction project. The sustainability credits offered to the construction industry for use of a green tool rating system for a given project are also limited The particular significance of this present research lies in the fact that the green tool developed for this project is based on generic bioclimatic sustainability criteria that 148 Chapter Eight Conclusions can be applied to single cases or all areas of the construction industry and its activities. This research has produced a bioclimatic green tool that can be applied to reducing carbon emissions from any single building element in an Australian construction system independently of their building class or typology. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the developed model tool has been demonstrated in this research. For whole construction systems, the maximum reductions achieved using the Green Star tool were from 17 to 32 per cent, as compared to the higher reductions achieved in the research model tool of 48 to 65 per cent (Table 7.13). When the research tool is applied to building elements of the floor, wall and roof of general Australian construction systems, reduction in carbon emissions ranged from 57 to 93 per cent (Tables 7.18, 7.21 and 7.24). However, a more significant finding is that application of the research tool to these elements of general construction systems consistently achieved significantly higher reductions in carbon emissions than in current building practice or through application of a currently-used green rating system (i.e. Green Star tool) to building elements (Tables 7.18, 7.21 and 7.24). The significance of this study thus lies in the fact that it clearly demonstrates that consideration of bioclimatic principles in construction projects has potential to significantly reduce the environmental impact of the construction process. Reduction of construction carbon emissions is becoming of vital importance if an ecologically healthy environment based on a program of sustainability and sustainable development is to be achieved in Australia and elsewhere. 8.3 Recommendations for the Australian construction sector based on this research Consideration of bioclimatic design principles in the construction industry must be of high priority in order to reduce carbon emissions resulting from the building construction process. Research needs to be funded and commenced on how these principles can best be implemented, as has been done in the United Kingdom (Allwood et al. 2012; UK Indemand 2014) and Germany (World Federation of Engineering Organizations 2011). It is also important to establish criteria that would allow for grant of credits where use of environmental assessment tools is incorporated into the building design process. 149 Chapter Eight Conclusions Reuse and recycling of construction and demolition materials also needs to be facilitated and mandated through legislation. Related to this, there also needs to be the creation and expansion of a warehouse of parts, reuse markets, and construction guidelines, as well as the expansion of deconstruction techniques, machinery and facilities (Bales 2008; Steel Construction Information 2014). This would increase the use of recycled construction materials, and reduce the impact of transportation. If such were established in the Australian context, this would significantly reduce embodied energy and carbon emissions in the building sector, and assist the Federal Government in their aim to reduce the total carbon emissions generated by Australian society. 8.4 Recommendations for further research The green model developed for this research considers only the main elements of the buildings in the case studies and general Australian construction systems (i.e. floors, walls and roofs), and then only within the first three stages of the building lifecycle. Extension of this research to include calculation of embodied energies and potential carbon emission reductions for all building elements in construction (e.g. finishing, stairs, windows, doors) needs to be performed. Additionally, this future research should encompass the entire building lifecycle. The use of 3D digital modelling in BIM (Eastman et al. 2011), with other software such as IMPACT (eToolLCD 2015) and Tally (EPD-Tally 2008), are able to collate and analyse data through applications such as AutoCAD or Revit (Eastman et al. 2011). Such applications have been used in environmental assessment, materials selection, and calculation of embodied energies and potential carbon emission reduction levels. Furthermore, such software can be used for sustainability assessment at any point during the building life cycle. Overall, use of such software facilitates a more integrated materials selection, design and construction process management that results in better quality and more sustainable buildings with lower carbon emissions, and even has potential to reduce the project duration (Drogemuller 2009; Jalaei & Jrade 2014). Extension of this research can thus most easily be achieved through use of software tools such as these. This will remove the limitations of the current research model, 150 Chapter Eight Conclusions and facilitate the application of bioclimatic design principles to any Australian construction project. 8.5 Limitations of this research As noted, the model in this present study has been applied only to the main building elements in the first three stages of the building lifecycle. In the next stage of this research, Building Information Modelling (BIM) or other software will be used. This will allow for calculation of embodied energy and relevant construction carbon emissions throughout the building lifecycle, and for all elements of the building concerned. It will then be possible for the research model to be applied to any case study with any classification in any location in Australia. The Process Energy Requirement (PER) method was used to calculate embodied energies in this research. An alternative calculation technique for embodied energies is the Input-Output method which is based on the sum of all energy inputs into a product system through all stages of the life cycle (Lawson 2006). However, calculations using the Input-Output method produce figures for embodied energy that are two to three times higher than the PER method. Such discrepancies will be solved through the use of Building Information Modelling and other software. Typical embodied energy units are measured using MJ/kg (megajoules of energy needed to make a kilogram of product), and these have to be converted to equivalent kilograms of carbon emissions. However, such conversion is not straightforward because different types of energy (oil, wind, solar, etc.) emit different amounts of carbon dioxide, thus the actual amount of carbon dioxide emitted when a product is made will depend on the type of energy used in the manufacturing process. To facilitate this conversion, the standard Australian Government equation (1 MJ = 0.098 kgCO2) has been used to convert embodied energy to equivalent carbon emissions. This study proposes geopolymer cement as a replacement for Portland cement for structural and non-structural building purposes. Geopolymer cement was chosen as the cement for reference in this thesis rather than other green cements for two reasons. First, while there are other options available, geopolymer cement is 151 Chapter Eight Conclusions currently by far the most common and widely used green cement in Australian construction, and its use is increasing. Second, geopolymer cement emerged in the literature review as the most appropriate green cement to consider from the viewpoint of reducing carbon emissions of construction. In respect to this, when used as a replacement for Portland cement, geopolymer cement produces a range of potentially high reductions in carbon emissions (75 to 90 per cent). This is because GC can be slag-based, rock-based or fly-ash-based. Geopolymer cements made from fly ash or granulated blast furnace slag require less sodium silicate solution in order to be activated. They consequently have a lower environmental impact than geopolymer concrete made from metakaolin rock (i.e. rock-based geopolymer cement). However, the type of geopolymer cement that might be used to replace Portland cement in building construction ultimately depends on the particular type available in the area concerned (Habert, d’Espinose de Lacaillerie & Roussel 2011). In turn, this will affect the outcomes where the research model is used, and this must be taken into account when the research model is applied. 8.6 Concluding Remarks Our world is changing, and our construction industry needs to adapt to these changes. The Australian building sector has the largest potential for achieving a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This could be through the simple application of bioclimatic design and construction principles. The outcomes of this research demonstrate that use of bioclimatic criteria can achieve reductions in carbon emissions from 48 to 65 per cent for whole building systems (Table 7.13), and from 57 to 93 per cent when applied to building elements of general Australian construction systems (Tables, 7.18, 7.21 and 7.24). However, a more significant finding is that application of the research tool to elements of general Australian construction systems consistently achieved significantly higher reductions in carbon emissions than in current building practice, or through application of a currently-used green rating system (i.e. Green Star tool) to building elements. The future of the green construction industry should thus include consideration of bioclimatic design principles. 152 Chapter Eight Conclusions The UK government has funded the UK-Indemand plan to achieve an 80 per cent reduction in construction carbon emissions by 2050. This is considered as an achievable target providing that future design and construction of buildings take into account bioclimatic principles and criteria (Allwood et al. 2012). If the Australian construction sector is to follow this lead, then some form of Australian Indemand scheme has to be funded and established. The outcomes of this research based on bioclimatic design support this proposal. Such a scheme would enable the government to achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and thus to reduce the impact of the building sector on the Australian environment. Current green tool rating systems are voluntary, do not apply the range of bioclimatic criteria inherent in the research model, and can be used only in 5 to 10 per cent of buildings. Full development of the research model will allow for its application to all building elements throughout the building lifecycle, and to any construction project of any classification in any location in Australia. One of the main objectives of this study is to assist the Australian Federal Government to meet the agreed targets from the 2015 Paris conference. Reducing the carbon emissions of the building sector is one of the most cost-effective ways of doing this. The application of green criteria and bioclimatic principles in building design and construction is currently not mandatory for the Australian construction sector, and thus sustainable practice is not routinely followed in this country. This must change if the Australian Federal Government are serious about meeting their carbon emission reduction targets of 26 to 28 per cent by 2030. In concluding this thesis, I would like to mention a quote attributed to the famous physicist, Albert Einstein: Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them (Albert Einstein) For the last century, humankind has had an increasingly negative impact on the resources and environment of this planet through unsustainable population growth and development, seemingly without great awareness of the problems we are now 153 Chapter Eight Conclusions facing. Urgent measures are now required to address these environmental and other problems. Awareness of bioclimatic principles in building design to reduce carbon emissions may provide a small step along the way to achieving sustainable construction as part of the solution to our global problems. 154 References REFERENCES ABC News 2017, Donald Trump announces US withdrawing from Paris climate deal, viewed 2 June 2017, <www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-02/donald-trumpannounces-us-withdrawing-from-paris-climate-deal/8580980>. Acquaye, AA, Duffy, AP & Basu, B 2011, 'Stochastic hybrid embodied CO2-eq analysis: an application to the Irish apartment building sector', Energy and Buildings, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1295-1303. Adams, WM 2003, Green development: environment and sustainability in the third world, Routledge, London. Adaptivereuse 2015, Just a cheap slab, Contemporary Metamorphoses, viewed 20 June 2015, <www.adaptivereuse.net>. Aggregate Industries 2014, Olympic Park London, great sustainability rating for products and transport, viewed 28 October 2015 < http://www.aggregate.com>. Aldred, J & Day, J 2012, 'Is geopolymer concrete a suitable alternative to traditional concrete?', 37th Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures, Singapore, 2931 August. Allwood, JM, Cullen, JM, Carruth, MA, Cooper, DR, McBrien, M, Milford, RL, Moynihan, MC & Patel, AC 2012, Sustainable materials with both eyes open, UIT Cambridge, Cambridge. Altomonte, S 2008, 'Climate change and architecture: mitigation and adaptation strategies for a sustainable development', Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 104-105. Architecture & Engineering 2015, 40-story building shrink in Japan, viewed 10 December 2015, <https://www.ArchiEngineering.com>. Architecture 2015, Principles of bioclimatic design, viewed 28 October 2015, <http://new-architecture-archi.com>. Ash Development Association of Australia 2013, Use of fly ash to achieve enhanced sustainability in construction, viewed 20 October 2015, <http://www.adaa.asn.au/>. ASTM International 2015, The need for standards, geopolymer binder systems, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), viewed 16 October 2015, <www.astm.org>. Aubree, A 2009, BREEAM International, Building Research Establishment (BRE), viewed 16 October 2015, <http://www.heattracing.co.uk/upload/BREEAM_WAT_04_Sanitary_Supply_Shut_ Off_System_-_Introduction.pdf>. Aye, L, Ngo, T, Crawford, R, Gammampila, R & Mendis, P 2012, 'Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules', Energy and Buildings, vol. 47, pp. 159-168. Azhar, S, Carlton, WA, Olsen, D & Ahmad, I 2011, 'Building information modelling for sustainable design and LEED® rating analysis', Automation in Construction, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 217-224. Bales, E 2008, Deconstruction and design for disassembly, New Jersey Institute of Technology, New Jersey. 155 References Benn, S, Dunphy, D & Griffiths, A 2014, Organizational change for corporate sustainability, Routledge, London and New York. Big Mate projects 2014, Local supplier, Springfield, Queensland, viewed 28 March 2015, <www.bigmateprojects.com.au>. Bioregional n.d., BedZED, viewed 9 July 2014, <http://www.bioregional.com/bedzed>. Birkeland, J 2012, Design for sustainability: a sourcebook of integrated ecological solutions, Earthscan, London. Bisset, R 2007, Buildings can play a key role in combating climate change, UNEP news release. Boral 2014, Boral roofing, build something great, Boral Catalogue. Borowy, I 2013, Defining sustainable development for our common future: a history of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission), Routledge, London. Brick Development Association (BDA) 2009, Recycled content in green building rating systems, Role number 703-620-0010, Report Section 48, pp. 7-14, London, United Kingdom. Brick Development Association (BDA) 2014, Think brick, London, United Kingdom, viewed 9 July 2014, <www.brick.org.uk>. Brick Industry Association (BIA) 2009, Sustainability: recycled content in green building rating systems – certification and credit, Report, Section 48, pp.1-3, Virginia. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) 2011, Japan crisis: Germany to speed up nuclear energy exit, viewed 18 March 2015, <www.bbc.co.uk>. Brown, G 2014, UK's first publically available embodied carbon database for buildings launches, ARUP, viewed 12 May 2016, <www.arup.com/news>. Building Green 2014, Embodied carbon: measuring how building materials affect climate, Environmental Building News, viewed 20 May 2015, <www2.buildinggreen.com>. Building Industry Council 2014, Louisiana Tech working on 'green' concrete, viewed 17 July 2013, <www.buildingindustry.org>. Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) 2014a, Recognised responsible sourcing certification schemes and BREEAM scheme applicability, viewed 12 May 2016, <http://www.breeam.com/filelibrary/Guidance%20Notes/80652---GN18-V2-0Final.pdf>. Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) 2014b, BREEAM International new construction technical manual, vol. SD5075, United Kingdom. Bull, JW 2012, Ice manual of structural design: buildings, Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), ICE Publishing, London. Cable News Network 2012, Olympic Park sets gold standard for sustainability, CNN, viewed 12 March 2014, <www.edition.cnn.com>. 156 References Canadian Architects 2015, Measures of sustainability, life-cycle energy use in office buildings, Canadian Architects, viewed 25 August 2015, <www.canadianarchitect.com>. Carbon Neutral 2015, Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, viewed 1 August 2015, <www.carbonneutral.com.au>. Carre, A 2015, Understanding the carbon footprint of materials choice in Australian housing using life cycle assessment (LCA), Fact Sheet – Broad circulation, Forest &Wood Products Australia, RMIT, Melbourne. Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia (CCAA) 2012a, Use of recycled aggregates in construction, viewed 20 June 2010, < http://www.concrete.net.au>. Cement, Concrete & Aggregates Australia (CCAA) 2012b, Green Star Mat–4 concrete credit user guide. viewed 20 June 2010, < http://www.concrete.net.au>. Cement, Concrete & Aggregates Australia (CCAA) 2015, Sustainable concrete buildings, viewed 20 June 2010, < http://www.concrete.net.au>. Centre for Sustainable Architecture with Wood (CSAW) 2010, Reducing the carbon footprint and environmental impacts of new buildings, Tasmanian Timber, viewed 21 April 2015, <http://www.tastimber.tas.gov.au/species/pdfs/Reduce_brief.pdf>. Centre for Sustainable Development 2014, Embodied carbon and energy in buildings, viewed 3 March 2014, <www-csd.eng.cam.ac.uk>. Chini, AR 2005, Deconstruction and materials reuse – an international overview, International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, University of Florida, Florida. Chisholm, D 2011, Best practice guide for the use of recycled aggregates in new concrete, Cement & Concrete Association of New Zealand. Clarke, B & Pullen, S 2008, ‘The need for adaptation of existing commercial buildings for climate change’, Proceedings of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors State Conference, Nuriootpa, South Australia, 28 February-1 March, pp. 74-90. ClimateWorks Australia 2010, Low carbon growth plan for Australia, viewed 28 October 2015 <http://www.climateworksaustralia.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/cli mateworks_lcgp_australia_full_report_mar2010.pdf>. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) 2000, Embodied and life time energies in the built environment, viewed 26 August 2015, <www.tececo.com.au>. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) 2014, Embodied energy, CSIRO, viewed 20 October 2015, <www.cmmt.csiro.au>. Concrete Block Association (CBA) 2013, Aggregate concrete blocks, Data Sheet 16, viewed 12 March 2015, < https://www.cba-blocks.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/cba-datasheet-16-aggregateblocksustainability-1.pdf>. Concrete Thinking 2014, Concrete Thinking for a sustainable world, Green Building Rating System, US Green Building Council, viewed 10 December 2015, <www.concretethinker.com>. 157 References Craig, A & Ding, G (eds) 2001, Sustainable practices in the built environment, 2nd edn, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Craven, J 2012, How to reclaim the land – 12 green ideas, Green Architecture & Healthy Design, viewed 11 July 2014, <www.architecture.about.com>. Crawford, RH & Treloar, GJ 2004, 'Net energy analysis of solar and conventional domestic hot water systems in Melbourne', Solar Energy, vol. 76, January-March 2004, pp. 159-163. Crowther, P 1999, 'Design for disassembly to recover embodied energy', in Szokolay, SS (ed), The 16th International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Melbourne-Brisbane-Cairns, Australia, QUT ePrints, pp. 1-6. Crowther, P 2015, ‘Re-valuing construction materials and components through design for disassembly’, in Thornton, K (ed), Proceedings of unmaking waste: transforming production and consumption in time and place, Zero Waste SA Research Centre for Sustainable Design and Behaviour, Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 261-269. Danciu, V 2012, 'Green marketing at work: the push-pull effects of the green communication strategies', Romanian Economic Journal, vol. 15, no. 45, pp. 3-24. DeConto, RM & Pollard, D 2016, ‘Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sealevel rise’, Nature Journal Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, vol. 531, pp. 591-596. Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW 2014, Brick and concrete removal, NSW Government, New South Wales. Department of the Environment and Energy 2012, National waste policy, Australian Government, viewed 3 March 2014, <http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-policy>. Design Coalition 2013, Natural building techniques, viewed 20 April 2015, <www.designcoalition.org>. Devonport TAS 2014, Driving directions to Freycinet experience walk, viewed 10 April 2014, <www.maps.google.com.au/maps>. Dowling, J 2010, The recycled content of steel products, British Constructional Steelwork Association Limited, England. Drogemuller, R 2009, ‘Collaboration using BIM: results of cooperative research centre for construction innovation projects’, in GQ Shen & P Brandon (eds), Collaborative construction information management, Spon Press (Taylor & Francis), London, pp. 55-67. Eastman, C, Eastman, CM, Teicholz, P & Sacks, R 2011, BIM Handbook: a guide to building information modelling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. Ecospecifier 2015, Materials impacts in construction, viewed 26 August 2015, <www.ecospecifier.com.au>. Ecospecifier 2016, Timber & wood products, viewed 22 February 2016, <www.ecospecifier.com.au>. 158 References Edge Environment Pty Ltd 2012, Construction and demolition waste guide – recycling and reusing across the supply chain, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, viewed 28 October 2015, <https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b0ac5ce4-4253-4d2bb001-0becf84b52b8/files/case-studies.pdf>. Edwards, B 1999, Sustainable architecture: European directives and building design, Butterworth Architecture, Architectural Press, Oxford. Eguchi, K, Teranishi, K, Nakagome, A, Kishimoto, H, Shinozaki, K & Narikawa, M 2007, 'Application of recycled coarse aggregate by a mixture to concrete construction', Construction and Building Materials, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1542-1551. Energy Design Partnership EDP 2012, Principles of bioclimatic design, energy solutions, viewed 20 February 2012, <www.edpenergy.com>. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2013, International energy outlook 2013, viewed 20 May 2016, <https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/0484(2013).pdf>. Envest 2 2016, Environmental impact assessment & whole life cost, Building Research Establishment (BRE) Group, viewed 20 May 2016, <http://envest2.bre.co.uk>. Environment Protection Authority (EPA) 2015, House deconstruction, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, viewed 30 November 2015, <https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au>. Environmental Design Guide (EDG) 2014, Robert Crawford design notes, viewed 20 May 2016, <http://www.environmentdesignguide.com.au/>. EPD-Tally 2008, General usage instructions, Autodesk, version 2015.08.31.01, viewed 21 April 2015, <www.choosetally.com>. eToolLCD 2015, Australia’s own eToolLCD is poised to become one of the first Phase 2 tools to comply with IMPACT LCA methodology since its release in October, viewed 28 May 2016, <http://etoolglobal.com>. European Environment Agency (EEA) 2016, Who we are, European Environment Agency (EEA), viewed 13 April 2016, < http://www.eea.europa.eu/about-us/who>. Fischer, JO 2006, Cut and paste: cold war housing for the masses is dismantled and reformed, Architecturemag, viewed 20 June 2014, <http://architecturemag.typepad.com>. Forest Stewardship Council FSC 2010, Take the LEED with FSC, viewed 28 April 2015, <http://www.ucsglobal.com/resources/factsheet_fsc%20and%20leed%20(2).pdf>. Fowler, KM & Rauch, EM 2006, Sustainable building rating systems summary, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, viewed 16 February 2016, <http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL15858.pdf>. Frangopol, D 2011, 'Structure and infrastructure engineering: Maintenance, management, life-cycle design and performance', Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 389-413. Friedman, L 2009, 'Climate change makes refugees in Bangladesh', Scientific American, vol. 3, p. 1. 159 References Future Foundation 2015, Sustainable construction, viewed 28 April 2015, <http://www.futurefoundations.co.uk>. GaBi Build-it 2010, DGNB certification and ecological comparisons, German Sustainable Building Council, viewed 28 March 2015, <http://www.peinternational.com, www.fsc.org>. Gan, GGG 2006, ‘Knowledge management practices in multimedia super corridor status companies in Malaysia’, PhD Thesis, University of Southern Queensland, Australia. Geiger, O 2010, Embodied energy in strawbale houses, Geiger Research Institute of Sustainable Building, viewed 1 September 2014, <http://www.grisb.org>. Geiger, O 2015, Scientists from Mexico’s Cinvestav develop ‘green’ cement, viewed 31 March 2015, <http://geopolymerhouses.wordpress.com>. Geopolymer Institute 2014, World’s first public building with structural geopolymer concrete, viewed 2 December 2014, <http://www.geopolymer.org>. Giesbrecht, N 1996, Strategies for developing and delivering effective introductorylevel statistics and methodology courses, ERIC Clearinghouse, viewed 20 February 2014, <http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED393668.pdf>. Gonzalez-Fonteboa, B 2005, 'Recycled aggregates concrete: aggregate and mix properties', Materiales de Construccion, vol. 55, no. 279, pp. 53-66. Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) 2008, Green Star – office design v3 & GreenStar – office as built v3, 1st edition, Green Building Council of Australia, Sydney. Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) 2014a, Green star project directory, viewed 20 February 2015, <http://www.gbca.org.au>. Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) 2014b, Sustainable steel in the spotlight, viewed 12 March 2014, <http://www.gbca.org.au>. Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) 2016, What is Green Star?, viewed 12 June 2016, <www.gbca.org.au>. Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) 2017, The Green Star rating scale, viewed 12 February 2017, < https://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-staroverview/the-green-star-rating-scale>. Green Leaf Brick 2016, Fired masonry brick and pavers composed of 100% recycled content, viewed 3 February 2016, <http://www.redtreegroup.com/>. GreenSpec 2015, Embodied energy, GreenSpec, viewed 10 December 2015, <www.greenspec.co.uk>. Habert, G, d’Espinose de Lacaillerie, JB & Roussel, N 2011, 'An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 19, no. 2011, pp. 1229-1238. Hasham, N, Bourke, L & Cox, L 2015, ‘Abbott government announces plan to cut emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 August 2015, viewed 14 October 2015, <http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/politicalnews/emissions-reductions-target-ranging-from-26-to-28-per-cent-to-be-put-tocoalition-partyroom-20150810-giw4tz.html>. 160 References Hawkesbury City Council 2014, Living sustainably in the Hawkesbury, Hawkesbury City Council, viewed 20 June 2014, <http://sustainability.hawkesbury.nsw.gov.au>. Haynes, R 2010, Embodied energy calculations within life cycle analysis of residential buildings, viewed 20 June 2014, < http://etoolglobal.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/Embodied-Energy-Paper-Richard-Haynes.pdf>. Hendriks, ChF 2001, Sustainable construction, Aeneas, Boxtel, Netherlands. Herbudiman, B & Saptaji, AM 2013, 'Self-compacting concrete with recycled traditional roof tile powder', Procedia Engineering, vol. 54, pp. 805-816. High Concrete Group 2014, Green architecture and recycled building materials, viewed 20 June 2015, <http://blog.highconcrete.com>. Holcim 2015, Materials reuse and regional transformation scheme, viewed 20 June 2015, <http://src.holcimfoundation.org>. Huffington Post 2013, 14 U.S. cities that could disappear over the next century thanks to global warming, viewed 31 March 2015, <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/global-warmingflooding_n_3799019.html>. Hui, S 2015, Sustainable architecture, viewed 18 March 2016 <http://www.ad.arch.hku.hk/research/BEER/sustain.htm>. Hyde, R & Yeang K 2009, 'Exploring synergies with innovative green technologies for advanced renovation using a bioclimatic approach', Architectural Science Review, vol. 53, no. 2, p. 229-230. Hyde, R (ed) 2008, Bioclimatic housing: innovative design for warm climates, Earthscan, London. Hyde, RA, Sattary, S & Sallam, I 2003, Green globe building design phase assessment: pre-assessment tool, Tourism Queensland, Department of Architecture, University of Queensland. IMPACT 2016, Integrated material profile and costing tool, viewed 20 June 2016, <http://www.impactwba.com>. Ingenia 2014, ‘The Olympic velodrome’, Sustainability, no. 51, p. 28. Inhabitat 2014, San Francisco's old bay bridge to be recycled into a green airbnb home and museum, viewed 25 February 2014, <http://inhabitat.com>. Inhabitat 2014, Hurricane Sandy – salvaged wood being used to rebuild the Rockaway boardwalk, viewed 25 February 2014, <http://inhabitat.com>. Institution of Civil Engineers 2012, Olympic waste and recycling, viewed 20 October 2014, <www.ice.org.uk>. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2011, Special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation, IPCC, United Nations. International Code Council (ICC) 2014, International green construction code, viewed 7 July 2014, <http://www.iccsafe.org>. Inventory of Carbon & Energy 2011, Database version 2.0, University of Bath, viewed 31 March 2015, <http://www.bath.ac.uk>. 161 References ISO 21930 International Standard 2007, Sustainability in building construction – environmental declaration of building products, International Organisation for Standardization, Switzerland. Iyer-Raniga, U & Wasiluk, K 2007, Sustainability rating tools – a snapshot study, Environment Design Guide, viewed 20 June 2016, <http://www.environmentdesignguide.com.au/pages/content/des--designstrategies/des-70-sustainability-rating-tools--a-snapshot-study.php>. Jalaei, F & Jrade, A 2014, ‘Integrating building information modelling (BIM) and energy analysis tools with green building certification systems to conceptually design sustainable buildings’, Journal of Information Technology in Construction, vol. 19, pp. 494-519. JLL 2012, Olympian steps for sustainability, viewed 24 July 2012, <http://www.joneslanglasalle.com>. Jones, D 2003, ‘Environmental assessment systems for commercial buildings LCA design’, International Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 19-21 November. Jong, JK & Rigdon, B 1998, Sustainable architecture module: qualities, use, and examples of sustainable building materials, National Pollution Prevention Center for Higher Education, viewed 20 June 2016, <http://www.umich.edu/~nppcpub/resources/compendia/ARCHpdfs/ARCHsbmIntro. pdf>. Kang, GS & Kren, A 2007, Structural engineering strategies towards sustainable design, SEAONC Sustainable Design, viewed 20 June 2016, <http://www.seaonc.org/sites/default/files/content/sestsd_final_.pdf>. Katz, A 2003, 'Properties of concrete made with recycled aggregate, partially hydrated old concrete', Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 703-711. Kernan, P, Kadulski, R, Labrie, M & Vancouver, G 2001, Old to new: design guide, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Policy & Planning Department, Canada. Kotrayothar D 2012, ‘Recycled aggregate concrete for structural applications’, PhD Thesis, University of Western Sydney, Australia. Kwan, WH, Ramli, M, Kam, KJ & Sulieman, MZ 2012, 'Influence of the amount of recycled coarse aggregate in concrete design and durability properties', Construction and Building Materials, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 565-573, Lawson, B 1996, Building materials, energy and the environment: towards ecologically sustainable development, Red Hill, ACT. Lawson, B 2006, ‘Embodied energy of building materials’, Environment Design Guide, Australian Institute of Architects, August 2006, pp. 1-4. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 2014, Raising the energyefficient roof with concrete tile: beyond traditional curb appeal, LEED points for concrete tile, McGraw Hill Construction, Georgia. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 2015, Sustainable design and LEED credits, Section 3.4 MR3 – resource reuse (salvage) – existing brick can be reused, US Green Building Council, Washington. 162 References Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 2016a, Green building 101: sustainable materials and resources, viewed 26 February 2016, <http://www.usgbc.org>. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 2016b, Environmentally preferable products, viewed 26 February 2016, <http://www.usgbc.org>. Learning Legacy 2014, Sustainability: London 2012 Olympics, an official site of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games, viewed 3 March 2014, <learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk>. Leather, BD & Wesley R 2014, 'Performance and style in the work of Olgyay and Olgyay', Architectural Research Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 167-176. Leontief, W 1995, Input-output economics, Oxford University Press, New York. Levine, M & Urge-Vorsatz, D 2007, ‘Residential and commercial buildings’, in B Metz, OR Davidson, PR Bosch, R Dave & LA Meyer (eds), Climate change 2007: mitigation. contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment, Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Liu, M 2010, ‘Bioclimatic retrofitting of existing buildings and urban networks’, PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Australia. Lohani, T, Jena, S, Dash, K & Padhy, M 2012, 'An experimental approach on geopolymeric recycled concrete using partial replacement of industrial by product ', International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 141-149. London Attractions Information 2016, London Olympic stadium, viewed 20 May 2016, <http://www.london-attractions.info>. London Evening Standard 2008, Olympic stadium unwrapped, viewed 16 February 2014, <http://www.standard.co.uk/news/olympic-stadium-unwrapped6930343.html>. London Olympics 2012, Sustainability, Olympics London, a story of sustainable architecture, viewed 17 March 2014, <http://learninglegacy.independent.gov.uk>. Low Carbon Living Capital Research Centre (LCLCRC) 2015, Leading the way, viewed 29 May 2015, <http://www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au>. Macintosh, A 2007, The National greenhouse accounts and land clearing: do the numbers stack up?, The Australian Institute, viewed 14 October 2015, <http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/WP93_8.pdf>. Masters, GM 1991, Introduction to environmental engineering and science, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Mawhinney, M 2002, Sustainable development: understanding the green debates, Blackwell Science, Oxford. McKinsey 2008, An Australian cost curve for greenhouse gas reduction, viewed 14 October 2015, <https://www.gbca.org.au/docs/McKinseyAustralian_Cost_Curve_for_GHG_Reduct ion%5B1%5D.pdf>. 163 References McLellan, B, Williams, R, Lay, J, Van Riessen, A & Corder, G 2011, 'Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary Portland cement', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1080-1090. Melbourne Building Supplies 2014, Construction material suppliers, viewed 12 March 2015, <www.melbsupplies.com.au>. Milne, G & Reardon, C 2014, Your home technical guide, embodied energy, Commonwealth of Australia, viewed 25 August 2014, <http://www.yourhome.gov.au>. Moncaster, A 2007, Whole life embodied carbon and energy of buildings, Interdisciplinary Design for the Built Environment, viewed 21 May 2014, <www.idbe.arct.cam.ac.uk>. Morgan, C & Stevenson, F 2005, Design and detailing for deconstruction, Scotland Environmental Design Association, SEDA. Myer, F, Fuller, R & Crawford, RH 2012, ‘The potential to reduce the embodied energy in construction through the use of renewable materials’, Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the Architectural Science Association, Gold Coast, Qld., pp. 1-8. Naik, TR 2008, 'Sustainability of concrete construction', Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, vol. 13, no. 2, pp 98-10. Nassar, RD & Soroushian, P 2012, 'Strength and durability of recycled aggregate concrete containing milled glass as partial replacement for cement', Construction and Building Materials, vol. 29, pp. 368–377. Nath, P & Sarker, PK 2014, 'Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient conditions', Construction and Building Materials, vol. 66, pp. 163-171. National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) 2016, ICC-700 2008 national green building standard, viewed 28 April 2016, <http://nahbnow.com>. Nationale Milieu Stichting Bouwkaliteit (NMSB) 2013, INSTRUMENTEN, embodied impact assessment for new housing and office buildings, viewed 28 March 2016, <https://www.milieudatabase.nl>. New Steel Construction 2010, Celebrating excellence in steel buildings in Europe, Structural Steel Design Awards, United Kingdom. NSW Government 2010, Roof surface removal, house deconstruction fact sheet, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, viewed 28 November 2014, <http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/managewaste/100083-roof-surfaceremoval.pdf>. Nuway, LS 2014, Material resources and suppliers, viewed 28 April 2014, <http://www.nuway.com.au/>. O’Connor, J 2004, ‘Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings', paper presented at the Woodframe Housing Durability and Disaster Issues Conference, Las Vegas, October 2004. Obla, K, Kim, H & Lobo, C 2010, 'Reusing ceramic wastes in concrete', Construction and Building Materials, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 832-838. 164 References O'Halloran, N, Fisher, P & Rab, A 2008, What is a carbon footprint?, Department of Primary Industries, Victoria. Olgyay, V 1963, Design with climate: bioclimatic approach to architectural regionalism, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Olivia, M & Nikraz, H 2012, 'Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by Taguchi method', Materials & Design Journal, vol. 36, pp. 191-198. Onesteel 2016, Green Building Council of Australia and Green Star ratings for steel, Australian Steel Institute. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2003, Environmentally sustainable buildings, challenges and policies, OECD Countries Publications Service, Paris. Pande, A 2015, Obama: climate change cannot be denied, Voice of America, viewed 14 October 2015, <http://www.voanews.com/a/obama-everglades-visit-pushesclimate-issues/2729960.html>. Pereira, FO 2002, Renewable energy for sustainable development and the built environment, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, United Kingdom. Poon, C, Kou, S & Lam, L 2002, ‘Use of recycled aggregates in moulded concrete bricks and blocks', Construction and Building Materials, vol. 16, no. 5, pp, 281-289. Port Jackson 2014, Material resources, location address, viewed 15 April 2014, <www.google.com.au/maps/dir/Ginninderra/Port+Jackson>. Portland Cement Australia 2014, Recycled aggregates, sustainability, recycled aggregate characteristics, viewed 28 November 2014, <http://www.cement.org>. Potts, J, Lynch, M, Wilkings, A, Huppe, G, Cunningham, M & Voora, V 2014, The state of sustainability initiatives review, International Institute for Sustainable Development, viewed 16 February 2015, <https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/ssi_2014.pdf>. Ramesh, T, Prakash, R & Shukla, KK, 2010, 'Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview', Energy and Buildings, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1592-1600. Recovery Insulation 2015, Embodied energy, recovery insulation, viewed 25 August 2015, <http://www.recovery-insulation.co.uk>. Rodway, S 2010, 'London's Olympic lessons, the first green summer games', Teaching Geography Journal, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 106-107. Sabnis, GM, 2012, Green building with concrete: sustainable design and construction, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Sattary, S & Cole, J 2012, 'Reducing embodied energy of building through retrofit: how can embodied energy be saved by retrofitting existing buildings?', in R Hyde (ed), Bioclimatic housing innovative design for warm climates, Earthscan, London. Sattary, S & Thorpe, D 2011, 'Reducing embodied energy in Australian building construction', in Egbu, C and Weng Lou, EC (ed), 27th Annual Conference of the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), Bristol, United Kingdom, pp. 1055-1064. 165 References Sattary, S & Thorpe, D 2012, 'Optimizing embodied energy of building construction through bioclimatic design principles (BDP)', in Smith, SD (ed), Proceedings of the 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Mangagement (ARCOM), Edinburgh, United Kingdon, pp. 1401-1411. Sattary, S & Thorpe, D 2016, 'Potential carbon emission reductions in Australian construction systems through bioclimatic design principles (BDP)', Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 23, pp. 105-113. Sattary, S 2011, Sustainability consideration in the operation of the road infrastructure, QUT University, Cooperative Research Centre for Infrastructure and Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM), Brisbane. Smith, M, Hargroves, K, Desha, C & Stasinopoulos, P 2009, Factor 5 in eco-cement: Zeobond Pty Ltd, ECOS, viewed 30 August 2014, <http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?paper=EC149p21>. Smith, T 2012, London 2012 Olympics: a story of sustainable architecture, viewed 23 August 2013, <http://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/07/23/london-2012olympics-a-story-of-sustainable-architecture/>. Spaeth, V & Tegguer, AD 2013, 'Improvement of recycled concrete aggregate properties by polymer treatments', International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 141-152. Steel Construction Information 2014, Steel construction and recycling, viewed 16 February 2014, <http://www.steelconstruction.info>. Stella, R 2016, Danish students take to the seas in floating shipping container apartments, viewed 2 December 2016, <http://www.digitaltrends.com>. Storey, J, Gjerde, M, Charleson, A & Pedersen Z 2005, ‘The state of deconstruction in New Zealand’, in A Chini (ed.), Deconstruction and materials reuse – an international overview, CIB Publication, Rotterdam. Structure Magazine 2014, Reducing embodied energy in masonry construction, viewed 14 February 2014, <http://www.structurearchives.org>. Subasic, CA 2016, Green building, the voice of the masonry industry, viewed 23 February 2016, <http://www.masonrymagazine.com>. Sustain 2014, Sustainability, viewed 20 May 2014, <http://www.sustain.co.uk>. Tam, VW 2009, 'Comparing the implementation of concrete recycling in the Australian and Japanese construction industries', Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 688-702. Tam, VW, Gao, X & Tam, C 2005, 'Macrostructural analysis of recycled aggregate concrete produced two-stage mixing approach', Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1195-1203. Tam, VY, Gao, XF & Tam, C 2006, 'Comparing performance of modified two-stage mixing approach for producing recycled aggregate concrete', Magazine of Concrete Research Journal, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 477-484. TATA Steel 2015, Greenhouse gas emissions, transport impacts, viewed 18 May 2015, <http://www.tatasteelconstruction.com>. 166 References Technology Strategy Board (TSB) 2010, Designing tomorrow’s greener buildings, Driving Innovation Press Release, viewed 25 March 2012, <www.webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk>. Thormark, C 2006, 'The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling potential of a building', Building and Environment Journal, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1019-1026. Thylacine 2014, Exhibition preparation, Interstate construction material supplier, viewed 20 March 2015, <http://www.thylacine.com.au>. Treloar, G 1998, 'A comprehensive embodied energy analysis framework', PhD thesis, Deakin University, Australia. Trip Advisor 2014, Tasmania, viewed 20 February 2014, <http://www.tripadvisor.com.au>. Turner, LK & Collins, FG, 2013, 'Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete', Construction and Building Materials, vol. 43, pp.125-130. Tyrell, ME & Goode, AH 2014, Waste glass as a flux for brick clays, US Department of the Interior, Washington. Uche, O 2008, 'Influence of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) on compressive strength of plain concrete', Pan Continental Engineering Sciences Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 30-36. UK Indemand 2014, Reducing material demand in construction, viewed 18 May 2015, <http://www.ukindemand.ac.uk>. UK Indemand 2015, An introduction to material efficiency, viewed 18 May 2015, <http://www.ukindemand.ac.uk>. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) 1992, Earth summit, viewed 4 April 2016, <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/milestones/unced>. United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) 2012, Rio+20, viewed 4 April 2016, <https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20>. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) 2006, Buildings and climate change, summary for decision-makers, Sustainable Buildings & Climate Initiative (SBCI), UN. United Nations Environment Program Sustainable Buildings & Climate Initiative (UNEP SBCI) 2009, Common carbon metric for measuring energy use & reporting greenhouse gas emissions from building operations, viewed 14 October 2014, <http://www.sballiance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Common-Carbon-Metric2009.pdf >. United Nations Environmental Protection Agency (UNEPA) 2015, Recover your resources, reduce, reuse, and recycle construction and demolition materials at land revitalization projects, viewed 1 April 2016, <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/cdbrochure.pdf>. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCCC) 1998, Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change 1997, viewed 4 April 2016, <https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf>. 167 References United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCCC) 2015, Paris climate change conference, viewed 4 April 2016, <http://unfccc.int/meetings/paris_nov_2015/meeting/8926.php>. US Green Building Council 2005, LEED for new construction & major renovations version 2.2, USGBC, Washington. US Green Building Council 2010, LEED 2009 for new construction and major renovations, USGBC, Washington, viewed 12 February 2016, <http://www.usgbc.org/sites/default/files/LEED%202009%20RS_NC_07.01.14_clea n_0.pdf>. US Green Building Council 2011, Certification LEED, USGBC, Washington, viewed 2 February 2016, <http://www.usgbc.org>. US Green Building Council 2016, LEED technical manual, USGBC, Washington, viewed 2 February 2016, <http://www.usgbc.org>. Volz, V & Stovner, E 2010, ‘Reducing embodied energy in masonry construction, understanding embodied energy in masonry’, Structural Sustainability, May 2010, pp. 8-10. Waste Watch 2004, History of waste and recycling information sheet, viewed 22 February 2014, <http://www.wasteonline.org.uk>. Watson, P, Jones, D & Mitchell, P 2004, ‘Are Australian building eco-assessment tools meeting stakeholder decision-making needs?’, The 38th International Conference of Architectural Science Association, Launceston, Tasmania, 10-12 November, pp. 371-377. Wellcamp 2014, Award winning concrete poured for Australia’s newest airport terminal, viewed 2 December 2015, <http://www.wellcamp.com.au/latestnews/media-releases/award-winning-concrete-poured-for-australia’s-newest-airportterminal>. Wilson, J & Tagaza, E 2006, 'Green buildings in Australia: drivers and barriers', Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 5-7. Wilson, L 2014, Beyond efficiency: 5 key ingredients for a sustainable home, viewed 23 November 2015, <http://reneweconomy.com.au/beyondefficiency-5-keyingredients-sustainable-home-69285/>. World Bank 2012, Fly ash bricks reduce emissions, World Bank, viewed 22 March 2014, <http://www.worldbank.org>. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987, ‘Our common future, chapter 2, towards sustainable development’, in Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, viewed 22 February 2014, <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm>. World Federation of Engineering Organizations 2011, Rising global trend of reusability, viewed 22th February 2014, < http://www.wfeo.org>. Wynn, D 2012, Embodied carbon – a Q&A with Sean Lockie, viewed 22 February 2014, < https://www.fgould.com/uk-europe/articles/embodied-carbon-q-sean-lockiedirector-carbon-and-/>. 168 References Yiu, C, Tam, VW & Kotrayothar, D 2009, 'A simplified testing approach for recycled coarse aggregate in construction', HKIE Transactions Journal, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 43-47. Zeobond Group 2014, Cement comes clean, E-Crete, viewed 26 February 2015, <http://www.zeobond.com>. 169 Papers and book chapter of the research PAPERS AND BOOK CHAPTERS FROM THIS RESEARCH Papers published as a consequence of this reseach have received much attention – for example, Sattary and Thorpe (2016) has received the highest read rating for the University of Southern Queensland (USQ) papers on the ResearchGate website. The following papers and book chapters have been published as a result of research relating to this thesis. Sattary, S & Thorpe, D 2011, 'Reducing embodied energy in Australian building construction', in Proceedings of ARCOM, Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), 27th Annual Conference, University of the West of England, UK, Bristol, UK, pp. 1055-1064. Sattary, S & Thorpe, D 2011, 'Reducing embodied energy in Australian building construction', in Proceedings of ARCOM, Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), 27th Annual Conference, University of the West of England, UK, Bristol, UK, pp. 1055-1064. Sattary, S 2011, Sustainability consideration in the operation of the road infrastructure, QUT University, Cooperative Research Centre for Infrastructure and Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM), Brisbane. Sattary, S, Hood D & Kumar A 2011, Towards operating roads with renewable energy and solving the global energy crisis, Cooperative Research Centre for Infrastructure and Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM), QUT University, Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC), Brisbane, Australia, July 2011. Sattary, S, Hood, D & Kumar, A 2011, The Existing Green Infrastructure Tools, Cooperative Research Centre for Infrastructure and Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM), QUT University, Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC), Brisbane, Australia July 2011. Sattary, S & Cole, J 2012, ‘Reducing embodied energy through retrofit’, in R Hyde, N Groenhout, F Barram & K Yeang (eds.), Sustainable retrofitting of commercial buildings, Warm climates, Earthscan, London. Sattary, S & Thorpe, D 2012, 'Optimizing embodied energy of building construction through bioclimatic design principles (BDP)', in Proceedings of ARCOM, 170 Papers and book chapter of the research Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), 28th Annual Conference, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 1401-1411. Sattary, S & Thorpe, D 2016, 'Potential carbon emission reductions in Australian construction systems through bioclimatic design principles (BDP)', Sustainable Cities and Society, vol. 23, pp. 105-113. Sattary, S, Thorpe, D & Poor, P 2016, ‘Carbon emission reductions in Australian construction systems to achieve the Paris agreement goals’, Pathway to sustainable economy, 28-29 November 2016, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. 171 Appendices Sustainable Construction APPENDICES Potential Carbon Emissions Reduction (PCER) in Australian Construction Systems through the Use of Bioclimatic Design Principles A Thesis submitted by Sattar Sattary B.Sc. (Architectural Engineering) M.Sc. (Architectural Engineering) For the award of Doctor of Philosophy 2017 172 Tables Contents in Appendices CONTENTS List of tables in the appendices 174 Appendix A – Data relating to Chapters Two, Three and Four 183 Appendix B – Data relating to Chapter Five 193 Appendix C – Data relating to Chapter Seven 202 A.C.1.1 Case Study One - Friendly Beaches Lodge 203 A.C.1.2 Case Study Two - ACF Green Home 207 A.C.1.3 Case Study Three - Display Project Home 214 A.C.1.4 Case Study Four - The Civil Engineering Laboratory, USQ 2013 219 A.C.1.5 Case Study Five - Olympics Velodrome Building, London 2012 223 A.C.1.6 Case Study Six - Multi Sports Building, USQ 2013 231 A.C.1.7 Implemented Calculations (example) for Case Study Five 237 A.C.2 RESEARCH MODEL APPLIED TO GENERAL AUSTRALIAN FLOOR, WALL AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS A.C.2.1 General Australian floor construction systems 243 A.C.2.2 General Australian wall construction systems 250 A.C.2.3 General Australian roof construction systems 274 Appendix D – Data relating to Chapter Five 285 Other Papers 290 173 Tables of Appendices LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDICES APPENDIX A DATA RELATING TO CHAPTERS TWO, THREE AND FOUR Table A.A.1: Embodied energy of common Canadian building materials ............. 183 Table A.A.2: Embodied energy and carbon emission of common Australian building materials ................................................................................................................... 184 Table A.A.3: Embodied energy in common building materials............................... 185 Table A.A.4: Embodied energy and carbon emission of building materials in AU, UK, US, CA.............................................................................................................. 186 Table A.A.5: LEED Points for concrete roof tiles…………………………………187 Table A.A.5: LEED credits for reuse of roof tiles ................................................... 187 Figure A.A.1: Reuse strategy: catalogue of construction systems made of reused materials .................................................................................................................. 188 Table A.A.6: Replacement 40% Portland cement with geopolymer cement: carbon emission for one square metre a 125 mm elevated concrete floor, .......................... 189 Table A.A.7: Full replacement of Portland cement with geopolymer cement: carbon emission for one square metre a 125 mm elevated concrete floor, .......................... 189 Table A.A.8: Full replacement of Portland cement with geopolymer concrete: carbon emission for one square metre of a 200-mm concrete slab on ground floor………………………………………………………………………………...190 Table A.A.9: Reduced carbon emissions in concrete block with full replacement by geopolymer cement .................................................................................................. 190 Table A.A.10: Reduced transportation emissions for each square metre of 200 mm concrete slab from use of recycled aggregates ......................................................... 191 Table A.A.11: Emission reduction in transportation by decreasing steel use in design (London Olympic stadium roof, Case Study 5) ....................................................... 191 Table A.A.12: Reduced carbon emissions in transportation from reuse of one square metre of 200 mm concrete slab floor aggregate (Case Study 5) .............................. 191 Table A.A.13: Reduced carbon emissions in transportation (carried by ship or rail) from reuse of one square metre of concrete block wall materials ............................ 192 APPENDIX B DATA RELATING TO CHAPTER FIVE Table A.B.1: Technical guide – Potential embodied energy reductions in building life cycle……………………………………………………………………………….193 Table A.B.2: Measurable indicators – Potential embodied energy that can be saved during building lifecycle………………………………..………………………….194 Table A.B.3: Credits in LEED ………………………………………………….…195 Sample of the research model developed for assessment of potential construction carbon emissions reduction …………………………………………………….….197 Table A.B.1: Case Study <number> ………………………………………….…...197 Table A.B.2: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in <name> ground floor construction system ……………………………….…………..…….198 Table A.B.3: Green Star, potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions in <name> ground floor construction system. Case Study <number>. Based on Green Star Technical Manual……………………………………………………………..198 Table A.B.4: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in construction stages of the <name> upper floor construction system ……………………...…….199 174 Tables of Appendices Table A.B.5: Green Star, potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in <name> upper floor construction system. Case Study <number>. Based on Green Star Technical Manual……………………………………………………………..199 Table A.B.6: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in construction stages of the <name> wall system………………………………….……..……….200 Table A.B.7: Green Star, potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in <name> wall construction system. Case Study <number>. Based on Green Star Technical Manual…………………………………………………….....................200 Table A.B.8: Green Star, potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in <name> roof construction system. Case Study <number>. Based on Green Star Technical Manual………………………………………….……………..………..200 Table A.B.9: Total potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in construction stages of floor, wall and roof construction systems……………….....201 Table A.B.10: Comparison of basic carbon emissions (embodied energy) from different sources (implemented, this research, Green Star and basic/standard) for each building system……………………………………………….………………201 APPENDIX C DATA RELATING TO CHAPTER SEVEN A.C.1.1 CASE STUDY ONE – FRIENDLY BEACHES LODGE Table A.C.1: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in elevated timber floor (lower level) construction system. Case Study One ............................ 203 Table A.C.2: Green Star, potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in elevated timber floor (lower level) construction system. Case Study One .......... 204 Table A.C.3: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber frame, single skin timber wall construction system. Case Study One ..................... 204 Table A.C.4: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber frame, single skin timber wall construction system. Case Study One…..205 Table A.C.5: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber frame, steel sheet roof. Case Study One ................................................................. 205 Table A.C.6: Green Star, potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber frame, steel sheet roof. Case Study One ................................................... 206 Table A.C.7: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber floor, timber walls, steel roof construction system. Case Study One ...................... 206 A.C.1.2 CASE STUDY TWO – ACF GREEN HOME Table A.C.8: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110mm concrete slab on ground floor construction system. Case Study Two. .................... 207 Table A.C.9: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110 mm concrete slab on ground floor construction system. Case Study Two.208 Table A.C.10: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed timber floor upper floor construction system. Case Study Two .................. 208 Table A.C.11: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed timber floor upper floor construction system. Case Study Two .......................................................................................................................... 209 Table A.C.12: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed, clay brick veneer wall construction system. Case Study Two .................... 210 Table A.C.13: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed, clay brick veneer wall. Case Study Two ........................ 211 175 Tables of Appendices Table A.C.14: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed, concrete tile roof construction system. Case Study Two ............................ 212 Table A.C.15: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed, concrete tile roof construction system. Case Study Two 213 Table A.C.16: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in concrete slab floor, timber framed brick veneer walls, timber framed concrete tile roof. Case Study Two ................................................................................................................ 213 A.C.1.3 CASE STUDY THREE – DISPLAY PROJECT HOME Table A.C.17: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study Three ............................................. 214 Table A.C.18: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study Three .................. 215 Table A.C.19: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed, clay brick veneer wall. Case Study Three ................................................................................. 216 Table A.C.20: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a timber framed, clay brick veneer wall. Case Study Three ................... 216 Table A.C.21: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a timber framed, steel sheet roof. Case Study Three .............................................................. 217 Table A.C.22: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a timber framed, steel sheet roof. Case Study Three .............................. 218 Table A.C.23: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in building system: concrete slab floor, timber framed brick veneer walls, timber frame steel sheet roof. Case Study Three .................................................................................... 218 A.C.1.4 CASE STUDY FOUR – CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY, USQ Table A.C.24: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 200 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study Four ............................................... 219 Table A.C.25: Green Star. Potential carbon emission reductions in a 200 mm Concrete slab on ground Floor ................................................................................. 220 Table A.C.26: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Four ...................................................................... 220 Table A.C.27: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Four ........................................ 221 Table A.C.28: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed, steel sheet roof. Case Study Four ................................................................ 221 Table A.C.29. Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed, sheet roof. Case Study Four……………….222 Table A.C.30: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in concrete slab floor, concrete upper floor, concrete block walls, steel framed, steel sheet roof. Case Study Four ....................................................................................................... 222 A.C.1.5 CASE STUDY FIVE – OLYMPICS VELODROME BUILDING Table A.C.31: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 200mm hollow core precast concrete slab floor. Case Study Five ................................ 223 Table A.C.32: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 200 mm hollow core precast concrete slab floor. Case Study Five ..... 224 Table A.C.33: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 125 mm elevated concrete upper floor. Case Study Five ................................................ 225 176 Tables of Appendices Table A.C.34: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 125 mm elevated concrete upper floor. Case Study Five .................... 226 Table A.C.35: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Five ...................................................................... 227 Table A.C.36: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Five ...................................................................... 228 Table A.C.37: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed timber weatherboard wall. Case Study Five ................................................ 228 Table A.C.38: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in steel framed timber weatherboard wall. Case Study Five ..................... 229 Table A.C.39: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed fabric roof (hemp wrap). Case Study Five................................................... 229 Table A.C.40: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed fabric roof (hemp wrap). Case Study Five (see Lawson 1996) ........................................................................................................................ 230 Table A.C.41: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in concrete slab floor, concrete upper floor, concrete block walls, steel framed, fabric roof. Case Study Five (see Lawson 1996). ................................................................................ 230 A.C.1.6 CASE STUDY SIX – MULTI SPORTS BUILDING, USQ Table A.C.42: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study six.................................................. 231 Table A.C.43: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study six ...................... 232 Table A.C.44: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 125 mm elevated concrete upper floor. Case Study Six ................................................ 233 Table A.C.45: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 125 mm elevated concrete upper floor. Case Study Six ...................... 234 Table A.C.46: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Six (Lawson 1996, p. 129)................................... 234 Table A.C.47: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Six (Lawson 1996, p. 129)..... 235 Table A.C.48: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel parallel chord trussed sheet roof. Case Study Six (Lawson 1996, p. 135)............... 235 Table A.C.49: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel parallel chord trussed sheet roof. Case Study Six (Lawson 1996, p. 135) .......................................................................................................................... 236 Table A.C.50: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in concrete slab floor, concrete upper floor; concrete block walls, steel parallel chord trussed roof. Case Study Six................................................................................................. 236 A.C.1.7 IMPLEMENTED CALCULATIONS (EXAMPLE) OLYMPIC VELODROME BUILDING, LONDON 2012. CASE STUDY FIVE Table A.C.51: Bioclimatic conditions in the London Olympic Velodrome ............ 237 Table A.C.52: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 200mm hollow core precast concrete slab floor ...................................................... 238 Table A.C.53: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 125mm elevated concrete upper floor ............................................................................ 239 177 Tables of Appendices Table AC.54: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall ................................................................................................... 240 Table A.C.55: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed timber weatherboard wall ............................................................................. 241 Table A.C.56: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed fabric roof (hemp wrap) ............................................................................... 242 Table A.C.57: Case Study 5. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a concrete slab floor, concrete upper floor; concrete block walls, steel framed, fabric roof construction system ................................................................... 242 A.C.2 RESEARCH MODEL APPLIED TO GENERAL AUSTRALIAN FLOOR, WALL AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS A.C.2.1 POTENTIAL CARBON EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN GENERAL AUSTRALIAN FLOOR CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS Table A.C.58: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in an elevated timber floor (lowest level) ............................................................................................................ 243 Table A.C.59: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in an elevated timber floor (lowest level) ........................................................................................ 244 Table A.C.60: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber floor upper floor ....................................................................................................... 244 Table A.C.61: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber floor upper floor ............................................................................................ 244 Table A.C.62: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 110-mm concrete slab on ground floor .............................................................................................................. 245 Table A.C.63: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 110-mm concrete slab on ground floor ................................................................................... 245 Table A.C.64: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 125-mm elevated concrete upper floor,................................................................................................. 246 Table A.C.65: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 125-mm elevated concrete upper floor, .................................................................................. 246 Table A.C.66: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 110-mm concrete slab (permanent framework) ............................................................................................ 247 Table A.C.66-1: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 110-mm concrete slab (permanent framework) ...................................................................... 247 Table A.C.67: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm precast concrete tee beam/infill floor .................................................................................................. 248 Table A.C.68: Green Star Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm precast concrete tee beam/infill floor ....................................................................... 248 Table A.C.69: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm hollow core precast concrete slab floor ........................................................................................ 249 Table A.C.70: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm hollow core precast concrete slab floor .................................................................... 249 A.C.2.2 POTENTIAL CARBON EMISSION REDUCTION IN GENERAL AUSTRALIAN WALL CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS Table A.C.71: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed, single skin timber wall ................................................................................................................ 250 178 Tables of Appendices Table A.C.72: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed, single skin timber wall ................................................................................ 250 Table A.C.73: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber weatherboard wall .................................................................................................... 251 Table A.C.74: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber weatherboard wall......................................................................................... 251 Table A.C.75: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed reconstituted timber weatherboard wall ................................................................... 252 Table A.C.76: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed reconstituted timber weatherboard wall ................................................................... 252 Table A.C.77: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed fibre cement weatherboard wall ....................................................................................... 253 Table A.C.78: Green Star- Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timer framed fibre cement weatherboard wall ............................................................................... 253 Table A.C.79: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed steel-clad wall ........................................................................................................................... 254 Table A.C.80: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed steel-clad wall .......................................................................................................... 254 Table A.C.81: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel-clad wall ........................................................................................................................... 255 Table A.C.82: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel-clad wall .......................................................................................................... 255 Table A.C.83: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed aluminium weatherboard wall .................................................................................................... 256 Table A.C.84: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed aluminium weatherboard wall .................................................................................. 256 Table A.C.85: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed clay brick veneer wall .............................................................................................................. 257 Table A.C.86: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed clay brick veneer wall ............................................................................................. 257 Table A.C.87: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed clay brick veneer wall .............................................................................................................. 258 Table A.C.88: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed clay brick veneer wall .............................................................................................. 258 Table A.C.89: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed concrete block veneer wall ..................................................................................................... 259 Table A.C.90: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed concrete block veneer wall ....................................................................................... 259 Table A.C.91: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed concrete block veneer wall ..................................................................................................... 260 Table A.C.92: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed concrete block veneer wall ....................................................................................... 260 Table A.C.93: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed timber weatherboard wall .................................................................................................... 261 Table A.C.94: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed timber weatherboard wall......................................................................................... 261 Table A.C.95: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a cavity clay brick wall 262 Table A.C.96: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a cavity clay brick wall.................................................................................................................. 262 Table A.C.97: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a cavity concrete block wall .................................................................................................................................. 263 179 Tables of Appendices Table A.C.98: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a cavity concrete block wall ................................................................................................... 263 Table A.C.99: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin stabilized rammed earth wall .................................................................................................... 264 Table A.C.100: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin stabilized rammed earth wall .................................................................................... 264 Table A.C.101: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin autoclaved aerated concrete block (AAC) wall .......................................................................... 265 Table A.C.102: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin autoclaved aerated concrete block (AAC) wall ........................................................ 265 Table A.C.103: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin cored concrete block wall ................................................................................................... 266 Table A.C.104: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin cored concrete block wall ......................................................................................... 266 Table A.C.105: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed compressed fibre cement clad wall .............................................................................................. 267 Table A.C.106: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed compressed fibre cement clad wall .......................................................................... 267 Table A.C.107: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm hollow core precast concrete slab wall ......................................................................................... 268 Table A.C.108: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm hollow core precast concrete slab wall ..................................................................... 268 Table A.C.109: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a tilt-up precast concrete wall ........................................................................................................................... 269 Table A.C.110: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a tilt-up precast concrete wall ................................................................................................ 269 Table A.C.111: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a porcelain-enamelled steel curtain wall ....................................................................................................... 270 Table A.C.112: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a porcelainenamelled steel curtain wall ..................................................................................... 270 Table A.C.113: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a glass curtain wall ..... 271 Table A.C.114: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a glass curtain wall ........................................................................................................................... 271 Table A.C.115: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel-faced sandwich panel wall ................................................................................................................. 272 Table A.C.116: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel-faced sandwich panel wall ................................................................................................. 272 Table A.C.117: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in an aluminium curtain wall .................................................................................................................................. 273 Table A.C.118: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in an aluminium curtain wall ............................................................................................................... 273 A.C.2.3 POTENTIAL CARBON EMISSION REDUCTION IN GENERAL AUSTRALIAN ROOF CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS Table A.C.119: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber shingle roof ............................................................................................................... 274 Table A.C.120: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber shingle roof ....................................................................................... 274 Table A.C.121: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed fibre cement shingle roof .................................................................................................. 275 180 Tables of Appendices Table A.C.122: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed fibre cement shingle roof ............................................................................. 275 Table A.C.123: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed steel sheet roof .................................................................................................................. 276 Table A.C.124: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed steel sheet roof ............................................................................................. 276 Table A.C.125: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel sheet roof ........................................................................................................................... 277 Table A.C.126: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel sheet roof ......................................................................................................... 277 Table A.C.127: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed concrete tile roof ..................................................................................................................... 278 Table A.C.128: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed concrete tile roof .......................................................................................... 278 Table A.C.129: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed concrete tile roof ..................................................................................................................... 279 Table A.C.130: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed concrete tile roof ...................................................................................................... 279 Table A.C.131: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed terracotta tile roof ..................................................................................................................... 280 Table A.C.132: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed terracotta tile roof ........................................................................................ 280 Table A.C.133: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed synthetic rubber membrane roof .............................................................................................. 281 Table A.C.134: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed synthetic rubber membrane roof .................................................................. 281 Table A.C.135: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a concrete slab synthetic rubber membrane roof .............................................................................................. 282 Table A.C.136: Green star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a concrete slab synthetic rubber membrane roof .............................................................................. 282 Table A.C.137: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed fibre cement sheet roof ..................................................................................................... 283 Table A.C.138: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed fibre cement sheet roof ............................................................................................. 283 Table A.C.139: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel sheet roof (commercial) .................................................................................................... 284 Table A.C.140: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel sheet roof (commercial) ................................................................................... 284 APPENDIX D DATA RELATING TO CHAPTER FIVE Table A.D.1: Bioclimatic conditions – current; from best practice with green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM); from the research model; and from research and lab ............................................................................................................................. 286 Table A.D.2: Bioclimatic conditions of the research considered against current practice; green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM); and from research and lab .................................................................................................................................. 287 Table A.D.3: Bioclimatic conditions – current; from best practice with green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM); from the research model; and from research and lab + Percentage Carbon Reductions ....................................................................... 288 Table A.D.4: Bioclimatic criteria examined in general Australian floor, wall and roof construction systems using the research model and the Green Star rating tool ...... 289 181 Appendix A APPENDIX A DATA RELATING TO CHAPTERS TWO, THREE AND FOUR In respect to Table A.A.1 Embodied energy figures for the materials of Canadian construction systems have been studied over several decades by researchers interested in the relationship between building materials, construction processes, and their environmental impact. These figures include the embodied energy of building materials based on units of weight (MJ/kg) and volume (MJ/m3) (Canadian Architects 2015). Table A.A.1: Embodied energy of common Canadian building materials) The Canadian common Building Standard/Basic Embodied Energy Materials MJ/kg MJ/m3 Aggregate 0.10 150 Straw bale 0.24 31 Soil-cement 0.42 819 Stone (local) 0.79 2030 Concrete block 0.94 2350 Concrete (30 Mpa) 1.3 3180 Concrete precast 2.0 2780 Lumber 2.5 1380 Brick 2.5 5170 Cellulose insulation 3.3 112 Gypsum wallboard 6.1 5890 Particle board 8.0 4400 Aluminium (recycled) 8.1 21870 Steel (recycled) 8.9 37210 Shingles (asphalt) 9.0 4930 Plywood 10.4 5720 Mineral wool insulation 14.6 139 Glass 15.9 37550 Fiberglass insulation 30.3 970 Steel 32.0 251200 Zinc 51.0 371280 Brass 62.0 519560 PVC 70.0 93620 Copper 70.6 631164 Paint 93.3 117500 Linoleum 116 150930 Polystyrene insulation 117 3770 Carpet (synthetic) 148 84900 227 515700 Aluminium Source: Canadian Architects (2015) 182 Appendix A Table A.A.2: Embodied energy and carbon emissions of common Australian building materials Standard/Basic Embodied Standard/ Basic Carbon Australian Building Materials Energy MJ/kg Emissions per Kg/MJ Kiln dried sawn softwood 3.4 0.333 Kiln dried sawn hardwood 2.0 0.196 Air dried sawn hardwood 0.5 0.049 Hardboard 24.2 2.372 Particleboard 8.0 0.784 MDF 11.3 1.107 Plywood 10.4 1.019 Glue-laminated timber 11.0 1.078 Laminated veneer lumber 11.0 1.078 Plastics – general 90.0 8.820 PVC 80.0 7.840 Synthetic rubber 110.0 10.780 Acrylic paint 61.5 6.027 Stabilized earth 0.7 0.069 Imported dimension granite 13.9 1.362 Local dimension granite 5.9 0.578 Gypsum plaster 2.9 0.284 Plasterboard 4.4 0.431 Fiber cement 4.8 0.470 5.6, 5.41 0.549, 0.821 In situ concrete 1.9 0.186 Precast steam-cured concrete 2.0 0.196 Precast tilt-up concrete 1.9 0.186 Clay bricks 2.5 0.245 Concrete blocks 1.5 0.147 AAC 3.6 0.353 Glass 12.7, 12.81 1.245, 1.51 Aluminium 170 16.660 Copper 100 9.800 Galvanized steel 38 3.724 Steel 341 AU 3.33, AU 21 Cement Source: Superscript data – 1: from Lawson (1996); remaining figures are from Lawson (2006); and Sattary and Cole (2012) 183 Appendix A Table A.A.3: Embodied energy in common building materials Common Building Materials Aggregate Concrete (1:1.5:3) Bricks (common) Concrete block (Medium density) Aerated block Limestone block Stone Marble Cement mortar (1:3) Cement Steel (general, av. recycled content) Steel Stainless steel Timber (general, excludes sequestration) Timber Glue laminated timber Cellulose insulation (loose fill) Cork insulation Glass fibre insulation (glass wool) Flax insulation Rockwool (slab) Expanded Polystyrene insulation Polyurethane insulation (rigid foam) Plastic Wool (recycled) insulation Straw bale Mineral fibre roofing tile Slate Clay tile Aluminium (general & incl 33% recycled) Aluminium Bitumen (general) Medium-density fibreboard Plywood Plasterboard Gypsum plaster Glass Fiber glass PVC (general) Vinyl flooring Terrazzo tiles Ceramic tiles Wool carpet Wallpaper Vitrified clay pipe (DN 500) Iron (general) Copper (average incl. 37% recycled) Brass Lead (incl 61% recycled) Lead Zinc Ceramic sanitary ware Paint - Water-borne Paint - Solvent-borne Photovoltaic (PV) Cells Type Monocrystalline (average) Polycrystalline (average) Thin film (average) Standard/Basic Embodied Energy MJ/kg 0.083 1.11 3 0.67 3.5 0.85 2 1.33 20.1 56.7 8.5 12 0.94–3.3 26 28 39.5 16.8 88.6 101.5 20.9 0.91 37 0.1–1.0 6.5 155 51 11 15 6.75 1.8 15 77.2 65.64 1.4 12 106 36.4 7.9 25 42 25.21 29 59 97 Energy MJ per m2 4750 4070 1305 Standard/ Basic Carbon Emissions per Kg/MJ 0.0048 0.159 0.24 0.073 0.3 0.11 0.116 0.208 1.01 1.37 2.7 6.15 0.46 0.301 0.87 1.35 1.7 1.05 2.55 3.48 1.91 0.11 2.7 0.006–0.058 0.45 8.24 11.51 0.38–0.43 0.72 1.07 0.38 0.12 0.85 8.11 2.41 2.92 0.12 0.74 5.53 1.93 0.52 1.91 2.6 4.51 1.57 3.21 2.91 1.51 2.12 3.13 Carbon kg CO2 per m2 242 208 67 Source: Superscript data – 1: Wilson (2015); remaining figures are from the Inventory of Carbon & Energy (2011); and the Institution of Civil Engineers (Bull 2012). 184 Appendix A Table A.A.4: Embodied Energy and carbon emission of building materials (AU, UK, US, CA) Building Materials in AU, UK and CA Standard/Basic Embodied Energy MJ/kg Standard/ Basic Carbon Emissions per Kg/MJ Standard/Basic Embodied Energy MJ/kg Standard/ Basic Carbon Emissions per Kg/MJ From Raw materials, Virgin natural resources From recycled materials and recycled contents Aggregate AU--, CA 0.1 UK 0.083 3.4 Kiln dried sawn softwood Kiln dried sawn 2.0 hardwood Air dried sawn hardwood 0.5 Hardboard 24.2 Paper 36.4 Particleboard 8.0 MDF 11.3 Plywood 10.4 Glue-laminated timber 11.0 Laminated veneer lumber 11.0 PVC US 65, AU 80.0 Synthetic rubber 110.0 Acrylic paint 61.5 Stabilized earth 0.7 Imported dimension 13.9 granite Local dimension granite 5.9 Gypsum plaster 2.9 Plasterboard 4.4 Fiber cement 4.8* Cement 5.6 In situ concrete 1.9 Precast steam-cured 2.0 concrete Precast tilt-up concrete 1.9 Clay bricks AU 2.5, UK 3 Concrete block AU 1.5, UK 0.67 AAC 3.6 Glass AU12.7, UK15, AU 15.63 Plastics – general AU 90, AU 983 Polyethylene US 98, AU 103 Polyester 53.7 Polypropylene expanded 117 Aluminium US 196, AU 170, AU 1913 Copper AU100 CA 0.0092 UK 0.00481 0.333 0.196 0.049 2.372 23.4 0.784 1.107 1.019 1.078 1.078 7.840 10.780 6.027 0.069 US 29, AU -- 1.362 0.578 0.284 0.431 0.470 0.549 0.186 0.196 0.186 AU 0.245, UK 0.24 AU 0.147, UK 0.073 0.353 AU 1.245, UK 0.85 8.820 AU 16.660, UK 11.54 AU9.800 12.53 AU 12, AU123 US 56, AU - US 27, AU 8.1, AU8.13, UK8.25 CA 8.1, UK 155 (33%recycled) UK 42 (average incl. UK 2.6 (average 37% recycled) incl. 37% recycled) AU 10.13, US 18, CA0.872 CA8.9 Steel AU 323, US40, CA32 Steel (general - average recycled content) Steel (section - average recycled content) Steel (pipe-average recycled content) Galvanized Steel Stainless Steel AU 323, US40, CA32 UK 20.7 UK 1.37 AU 323, US40, CA32 UK 21.5 UK 1.42 AU 323, US40, CA32 UK 19.8 UK 1.37 AU38 UK 56.7 UK2.74 3.724 UK 6.15 AU 10.1 Sources: Superscript data – 1: Greenspec (2015); 2: Canadian Architects (2015); 3: O'Halloran, Fisher and Rab (2008); 4: Institution of Civil Engineers (Bull 2012). Remaining Australian data from Lawson (1996; 2006), and O'Halloran, Fisher and Rab (2008); US data from Jong and Rigdon (1998); and Canadian data from Canadian Architects (2015). 185 Appendix A Table A.A.5: LEED Points for concrete roof tiles LEED NC US Green Building Council Category Requirements Concrete Roof Tile Points Local Heat Island Effects LEED for Homes SS 3 Material with a solar reflectance (SRI) Roof Tile offers product with SRI > > 29 1 29 Energy Performance EA 1 Improve the overall energy performance of a home by meeting or exceeding the performance of an ENERGY STAR labelled home Environmentally Preferable Products MR 2 Local production. Use products that were extracted, processed and manufactured within 500 miles of the home Environmentally Preferable Products Roof Tiles with SRI > 29 help to reduce cooling loads in homes Roof tile manufacturers can provide information to identify production facilities within 500 miles of a project. Up to 4 1/2 Source: Hanson Roof Tiles (LEED 2014) Table A.A.5: LEED credits for reuse of roof tiles Use recycled roof tiles, 92 MJ/m2 x 13% (LEED 2014) = 11.96 MJ/m2 Use recycled roof tiles (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) from 45% recycled content Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg (Greenspec 2015) x (44 concrete – 6.16 cement) Kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p.134) x 45% = 0.083 x 37.84 kg/m2 x 50% (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2014) =1.57 MJ/m2 Therefore, total released carbon from concrete roof tile (Lawson 1996, p. 127) is 240 MJ/m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 23.52 Kg CO2/m2 The reduced carbon emission from use of recycled concrete roofs: 1.57 MJ/m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 0.15 Kg CO2/m2 186 Appendix A Figure A.A.1: Reuse strategy: Catalogue of construction systems made of reused materials Source: Holcim (2011). 187 Appendix A Table A.A.6: Replacement 40% Portland cement with geopolymer cement: carbon emissions for a one square metre of 125 mm elevated concrete floor 300kg/m2 concrete (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 42 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete; therefore the reduced embodied energy will be: 42 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 40% = 94.08 MJ/ m2 Generated carbon emission 1 MJ = 0.098 kg CO2 (CSIRO 2014) Therefore, the total reduced carbon emission of 125 mm elevated concrete floor will be: 94.08MJ/m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 9.21 Kg CO2 /m2 Total carbon emission of 125 mm elevated concrete floor will be: 497 MJ/m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 48.7 Kg CO2 /m2. Table A.A.7: Full replacement of Portland cement with geopolymer cement: carbon emissions for one square metre of 125 mm elevated concrete floor 300kg/m2 concrete (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 42 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete; therefore the reduced embodied energy will be: 42 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 235.2 MJ/ m2 Generated carbon emission 1 MJ = 0.098 kg CO2 (CSIRO 2014) Therefore, total reduced carbon emission of 125 mm elevated concrete will be: 235.2MJ/m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 23.04 Kg CO2 /m2 The total carbon emission of 125 mm elevated concrete floor will be: 497 MJ/m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 48.7 KgCo2/m2. 188 Appendix A Table A.A.8: Full replacement of Portland cement with geopolymer concrete: carbon emissions for a one square metre 200 mm concrete slab on ground floor 381 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 97% = 51.73 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 51.73 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 289.74 MJ/ m2 Reduced Embodied Energy 289.74 MJ/ m2 Reduced Embodied Energy 594 MJ/ m2 Total Embodied Energy of the 200mm Concrete Slab (Lawson 1996, p. 125) Embodied energy 1 MJ = 0.098 kg CO2) Generated carbon emission (CSIRO 2014) The total carbon emission of 200 mm concrete slab floor will be: 594MJ/m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 58.12 Kg CO2/m2 Therefore, total reduced carbon emission of 200 mm concrete slab floor will be: 289.74 MJ/m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 28.39 Kg CO2/m2 – shows 48.84% reduction in the generated carbon emissions of 200mm concrete slab on ground floor Table A.A.9: Reduced carbon emissions in concrete block with full replacement by geopolymer cement Geopolymer based cement = 89Kgs/tonne (CBA 2013) / 1000 x 275 = 24.47 Kg/ m2 reduced Portland cement in concrete block Reduced cement 24.47 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 137.03 MJ/ m2 reduced embodied energy Embodied energy 1 MJ = 0.098 kg CO2 Generated carbon emission (CSIRO 2014) Embodied Energy of the concrete Block with Portland cement 385 MJ/m2 Reduced carbon emissions 137.03 MJ/ m2 Generated carbon emissions of the concrete block with Portland cement is 385 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 129) x 0.098 kg CO2 = 37.73 Kgs CO2/m2 Reduced carbon emissions by replacing Portland cement with geopolymer cement is 137.03 MJ/ m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 14.45 Kgs CO2/m2 That shows 38.29 per cent reduction in carbon emissions. 189 Appendix A Table A.A.10: Reduced transportation emissions for each square metre of 200 mm concrete slab from recycled aggregate Reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg.m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 – {(0.6 +0.25) / 2} MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 102.09 MJ/ m2 Generated carbon emission 1 MJ = 0.098 kg CO2 (CSIRO 2014) Reduced carbon emission is: 102.09 MJ/ m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 10.00 Kgs CO2/m2 The Standard/Basic carbon emission by truck is: Reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km (Lawson p. 12) = 112.73 MJ/ m2 139.01 MJ/ m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 11.04 Kgs CO2/m2 Table A.A.11: Emission reduction in transportation by decreasing steel use in design (London Olympics stadium roof, Case Study 5) 9.33 kg/m2 steel (Lawson 1996, p. 135) /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) x 90% = 3.77 MJ/ m2 decreased embodied Energy Generated carbon emission 1 MJ = 0.098 kg CO2 (CSIRO 2014) 3.77 MJ/ m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 0.37 Kgs CO2/m2 Embodied Energy of the roof is 282 MJ/ m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 129) Generated carbon emissions from the roof is 401 MJ/ m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 39.3 Kgs CO2/m2 Table A.A.12: Reduced carbon emissions in transportation from reuse of one square metre of 200 mm concrete slab floor’s aggregates (Case Study 5) Reduced embodied energy in transportation (297 + 5.148 + 84) = 386.14 kg/m2 386.14 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x {4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 125.87 MJ/ m2 Generated carbon emission 1 MJ = 0.098 kg CO2 (CSIRO 2014) The reduced carbon emission is: 125.87 MJ/ m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 12.33 Kgs CO2/m2 The Standard/Basic carbon emission by truck is: 386.14 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 139.01 MJ/ m2 139.01 MJ/ m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 13.62 Kgs CO2/m2 190 Appendix A Table A.A.13: Reduced carbon emissions in transportation (carried by ship or rail) from reuse of one square metre of concrete block wall materials Reduced embodied energy in transportation: Reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg.m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 – {(0.6 +0.25) / 2} MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 102.09 MJ/ m2 Generated carbon emission 1 MJ = 0.098 kg CO2 (CSIRO 2014) Reduced carbon emission is: 102.09 MJ/ m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 10.00 Kgs CO2/m2 The Standard/Basic carbon emission by truck is: Reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 112.73 MJ/ m2 139.01 MJ/ m2 x 0.098 kg CO2 = 11.04 Kgs CO2/m2 191 Appendix B APPENDIX B DATA RELATING TO CHAPTER FIVE Table A.B.1: Technical guide – Potential embodied energy reductions in building life cycle Building Life Cycle Stages Bioclimatic criteria Reduce, save and replace energy use in extraction and Production of Building materials Stage I, II Stage III Stage IV Stage V PreConstruction Construction Post-Construction Demolition Produce, reprocess, assemble and re-assemble Reduce, save and replace energy use in building by using renewable materials - Use organic materials - Reprocess materials and elements - Use recycled materials - Construct, retrofit and reuse Repair, maintain, refurbish and retrofit Demolish, deconstruct and recycle Reduce, save and replace energy use in buildings by: Reusing building materials Using organic materials Retreating materials Repairing materials Using recycled materials Using materials with recycled content Recycling waste materials Reduce, save and - Reduce, save and replace energy use replace energy use in building by: in building by - Reusing building using easilydemolished materials systems - Reconditioning - Using buildings deconstructible - Retrofitting and systems repairing (reusing, - Use fully retreating, repairing, recycling recyclable materials materials) - Recycling construction waste Reduce, save and - Save and - Save and reduce - Save and reduce - Save and reduce replace energy energy use in energy use in repair, energy use in reduce use in demolishing, energy use in construction processes, maintenance, reusing ... refurbishment, deconstructing and Implementation production retrofitting ... recycling ... processes - Replaced renewable energy in production - Replace renewable - Replace - Replaced processes, reusing ... energy in renewable energy renewable demolishing, in repair, energy in deconstructing and maintenance, production recycling... refurbishment and processes retrofitting ... Reduce, save and replace energy use in Transportation 192 - Save and - Save and reduce energy use in reduce energy use in transportation of transportation construction processes by using locally of materials and elements resourced materials, local professionals - Replace - Replace renewable renewable energy in energy in transportation transportation by using materials of materials carried with renewable and elements energy - Save and reduce - Save and reduce energy use in energy use in transportation of transportation for repair, maintenance, demolishing, refurbishment and deconstructing and retrofitting … recycling - Replace renewable - Replace energy in renewable energy transportation for in transportation demolishing, for repair, deconstructing and maintenance, recycling refurbishment and retrofitting Appendix B Table A.B.2: Measurable indicators – Potential embodied energy that can be saved during building lifecycle Building Life Cycle Stages Bioclimatic criteria Stage I, II Stage III Stage IV Stage V PreConstruction Construction Post-Construction Demolition Construct, retrofit and reuse Repair, maintain, refurbish and retrofit Saved and reduced embodied energy by: Reusing buildings Reusing materials and elements Retreating & repairing materials Using recycled material Using material with recycled content Using fully recycled material Using recycled materials from waste Saved and reduced Saved and embodied energy reduced embodied by: - Reusing buildings energy by: - Reusing material - Using de- Reconditioning, constructible repairing and elements and retrofitting building (reusing, retreat, materials repair, recycled - Using material) recyclable materials Produce, reprocess, assemble and reassemble Measurable - Saved and energy that can reduced be reduced and embodied saved in energy by extraction and using Production of recycled, reprocessed, Building reassembled materials components, materials and elements - Demolish, recycle and deconstruct Measurable energy that can be replaced and saved in Implementation - Saved and Saved and reduced energy reduced energy use in construction use in processes by; production - Reusing building, spaces, processes elements, materials - Replaced - Replaced renewable energy renewable in construction processes energy in production processes Saved and reduced energy use in repair, maintenance, refurbishment and retrofitting processes - Replaced renewable energy in repair, maintenance - Saved and reduced energy use in demolition processes - Replaced renewable energy in demolition processes Measurable energy that can be replaced and saved in Transportation - Saved and - Saved and reduced energy - Saved and reduced reduced use in transportation and energy use in energy use in construction processes transportation of transportation, - Reused buildings, spaces, production processes and production elements, materials processes - Replaced renewable energy Reused building, spaces, elements, - Replaced in transportation and materials renewable construction processes energy in - Replaced - Reused buildings, spaces, transportation renewable energy elements, materials of materials in transportation - Saved and reduced energy use in transportation for demolition processes - Replaced renewable energy in transportation 193 Appendix B Table A.B.3: Credits in LEED Credit 1 - Building Reuse The intent of this credit is to extend the life cycle of existing building stock, conserve resources, retain cultural resources, reduce waste and reduce the environmental impacts of new buildings. Credit 1.1 awards one point for 75 per cent reuse of existing walls, floors and roof. Credit 1.2 gives one additional point for maintaining 100 per cent of the existing walls, floors and roof. Changes proposed for LEED version 2.2 lower these thresholds to 40 per cent and 80 percent, respectively, making it easier to qualify. Credit 1.3 awards one additional point for the reuse of 50% of interior non-structural elements. Non-structural masonry walls and floors can contribute to this point. Credit 2 - Construction Waste Management The intent of this credit is to divert construction, demolition and land clearing debris from landfill disposal. Scraps and broken pieces of concrete masonry can be crushed and used for aggregate or fill. Clay brick scraps can be crushed and used for landscaping as brick chips. Intact, unused masonry units can be saved to use on another project, or donated to Habitat for Humanity or other charitable organizations. One point is awarded for the diversion of 50 per cent of the construction, demolition and land clearing waste (Credit 2.1). One additional point is awarded for diverting 75 per cent (Credit 2.2). Calculations can be done on a weight or volume basis. Credit 3 - Resource Reuse This credit is intended for the reuse of salvaged materials and products to reduce the demand for virgin products. Materials salvaged on site do not apply to this credit, but do count toward Credit 1 — Building Reuse. Masonry materials such as brick can be salvaged, but the Brick Industry Association warns against their use. Used brick may not meet the requirements of present-day specifications and may not bond properly. Paver brick that is salvaged and used for interior applications on a new building meet the intent of this credit. Up to two points can be earned for the use of salvaged building materials for 5 and 10 per cent of building materials (Credits 3.1 and 3.2). Credit 4 -Recycled Content This credit is intended to increase demand for building products that incorporate recycled content materials, therefore reducing the impacts resulting from extraction and processing of new and virgin materials. This credit award up to two points for using building products that incorporate recycled content materials. Because of the inert nature of masonry products, they are ideal candidates for incorporating recycled materials. The requirement for one point is that materials with the sum of postconsumer recycled content plus half the post-industrial content constitutes at least 5 per cent of the total value of materials in the project (Credit 4.1). If the sum of postconsumer recycled content plus half the post-industrial content equals 10% or more, 194 Appendix B one additional point is awarded (Credit 4.2). Concrete masonry units often incorporate recycled materials. According to the NCMA, supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash, silica fume and slag cement are considered post-industrial materials. Concrete masonry that incorporates recycled concrete masonry, glass, slag or other recycled materials such as aggregate qualify as post-consumer. Clay brick often incorporates recycled brick ground and used as grog (i.e. crushed unglazed pottery or brick used as an additive in plaster or clay). If reclaimed from a job site, this material can qualify as post-consumer recycled content. Some manufacturers use bottom ash, a post-industrial waste, for 10 to 12 per cent (by weight) of the clay body. Other post-industrial materials used include fly ash and even sludge. Because of the inert properties of brick, even contaminated soil and sawdust is used. One company uses waste from a nearby ceramic white ware manufacturer as grog. Mortar may contain recycled materials such as fly ash. Steel reinforcing bars used in reinforced masonry may contain post-consumer or post-industrial materials. Credit 5 - Regional Materials This credit encourages the use of building materials that are extracted and manufactured within the region, thereby supporting the regional economy and reducing the environmental impacts resulting from transportation. Masonry products can contribute up to one point when 20 per cent of the building materials and products are manufactured within a 500-mile radius of the project site (Credit 5.1). One additional point is earned if the regionally manufactured materials use a minimum of 50 per cent of building materials that are extracted, harvested or recovered within 500 miles of the project site (Credit 5.2). Changes to the specifics of this credit are proposed for LEED 2.2 (Subasic 2016). 195 Appendix B Sample of the research model developed for assessment of potential construction carbon emissions reduction The research model developed reviews six case studies from Australia and the United Kingdom. The selected case studies and their construction systems represent the general construction systems used in Australia as identified by Lawson (1996). These can include any project from any classification (residential, public, and commercial). For example, the first three case studies are taken from a paper written by Lawson (1996) – all details and information for these are provided, together with embodied energy and implemented embodied energy (Lawson 1996). The fourth and sixth case studies focus on buildings recently completed on the Springfield campus of the University of Southern Queensland (USQ). All drawings and detailed information were accessible. The Olympic Velodrome Building from the London Olympics in 2012 is the focus of the fifth case study – these Olympics achieved high sustainability levels from a range of different environmental tools (e.g. CEEQUAL, ISCA, and BREEAM). Table A.B.1: Case Study <number> Figure <number> Location: Floor construction system Wall construction system Roof construction system Principal architects 196 Bioclimatic Conditions Reuse, recycle, materials resources, suppliers and transport Recycled aggregates in material production Steel from recycled contents Reduce material use in design Reuse construction materials Geopolymer, fly ash and cement substitute Transportation reduction by reuse, recycle sustainable transportation mode Material resources and suppliers, Global Building Resources Appendix B Table A.B.2: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions in <name> ground floor construction system Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Steel from average recycled content Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Steel from average recycled content Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Green Star Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Transportation Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling Green Star Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers Life cycle stages of building Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Embodied Energy Basic ---MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 Total Floor --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 Table. A.B.3: Green Star, potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions in <name> ground floor construction system. Case Study <number>. Based on Green Star Technical Manual. Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Floor Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 --- MJ/ m2 ---- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 197 Appendix B Table A.B.4: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in construction stages of <name> upper floor construction system Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Implementation Transportation Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Steel from average recycled content Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Steel from average recycled content Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Green Star Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling Green Star Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Floor Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 --- MJ/ m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 Table A.B.5: Green Star, potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in <name> upper floor construction system. Case Study <number>. Based on Green Star Technical Manual. Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total elevated Floor 198 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 --- MJ/ m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 2 --- MJ/m Embodied Energy Basic --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 Appendix B Table A.B.6: Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in construction stages of the <name> wall construction system. Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled materials as aggregate for concrete block Building materials and elements Green Star Reused recycled materials for ----------Decreased and Replaced energy in process Implementation Green Star Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling Transportation Green Star Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Walls Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) to reduce --- MJ/ m2 --- MJ/ m2 Embodied Energy Basic ---MJ/ m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 --- MJ/ m2 --- MJ/m2 ---MJ/ m2 Table A.B.7: Green Star, potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions in <name> construction system. Case Study <number>. Based on Green Star Technical Manual. Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction --- MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 ---- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 Table A.B.8: Green Star, potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction in <name> construction system. Case Study <number>. Based on Green Star Technical Manual. Life Cycle Stages of building easurable energy to reduce in plementation Green Star, Total Roof Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/m2 ---- MJ/m2 ---- MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic --- MJ/m2 --- MJ/ m2 199 Appendix B Table A.B.9: Total potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions in construction stages of floor, wall and roof systems Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emissions (Embodied Energy) to reduce Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable replaced and saved energy in Building materials and elements (Tables <numbers>) Measurable replaced and saved energy in Implementation (Tables <numbers>) Measurable replaced and saved energy in Transportation (Tables <numbers?) ---- MJ/m2 ---- MJ/m2 ----- MJ/m2 ----- MJ/m2 ----- MJ/ m2 ---- MJ/m2 ----- MJ/m2 Total, building system Embodied Energy Basic ---MJ/m2 ----- MJ/m2 ---- MJ/m2 ------ MJ/m2 Table A.B.10: Comparison of basic carbon emissions (embodied energy) from different sources (implemented, this research, Green Star and basic/standard) for each building system Implemented carbon emission (embodied energy) CO2 Emission (embodied energy) reductions Embodied Energy MJ/m2 Carbon Emissions Kg/m2 Floor/s - - -- -- -- -- -- -- External walls - - -- -- -- -- -- -- Roof/ceiling - - -- -- -- -- -- -- Total - -- -- - Embodied Energy Carbon Emissions MJ/m2 Kg/m2 Basic carbon emission (embodied energy) -This Research -- -- -- Embodied Energy MJ/m2 Carbon Emissions Kg/m2 Green This Green Star Research Star Sources Columns 2 and 3 data are the embodied energy and reduced carbon emissions in implementation (i.e. completed construction) Columns 3 and 5 data are the potential reductions in embodied energy and carbon emissions from this research Columns 4 and 6 data are the potential reductions in carbon emissions through application of the Green Star tool Columns 7 and 8 data are the (expected) standard or basic embodied energy and carbon emissions 200 Appendix C APPENDIX C DATA RELATING TO CHAPTER SEVEN APPLICATION OF RESEARCH MODEL 201 Appendix C Case Study One – Friendly Beaches Lodge A.C.1.1 Case Study One – Friendly Beaches Lodge Table A.C.1: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in an elevated timber floor (lower level) construction system. Case Study One (see Lawson 1996, p. 124) Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Reuse the recycled aggregate in concrete - Concrete from 80 % Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (26.4 kg concrete – 3.69 cement) Kg x 80% (Lawson 1996, p. 135) =1.52 MJ/m2 Reuse the recycled aggregate for brick, 67% (BDA 2014; Tyrell and Goode 2014), 36 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 67% x 0.083 MJ/kg = 2 MJ/ m2 Reuse materials and elements - Use recycled bricks 60% x 90 = 54MJ/m2 Building materials and -Timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber, use recycled hardwood joist, flooring, 54 elements MJ/m2 x 60% = 32.4 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete In Green Star technical manual, considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (26.4 concrete – 3.69 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 20% = 0 .38 MJ/m2 Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, Materials p. 275, 95% of all timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber 60% Recycled hardwood joints use recycled hardwood joist, flooring, 54 MJ/m2 x (p.124, L.1), 60% = 32.4 MJ/m2 Decrease and replace energy in the process, Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacing Portland with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011; Kotrayothar 2012) 26.4 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 97% = 3.69 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 3.69 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 20.66 MJ/ m2 Implementation Potential 40 per cent energy savings in brick manufacturing using 67% recycled container glass brick grog (BDA 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014). Reduced energy 90 MJ/m2 x 40% = 36 MJ/m2 Green Star, Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 60% replacing Portland cement with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 26.4 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = 2.29 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 2.29 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 12.82 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and use recycled materials There are construction material suppliers if the materials come from the inside of state, the distance will be over 50 km (60% x 36 kg/m2 Brick + 60% x 14.7 kg/m2 Hardwood and Joist) 36.3 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 50 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 8.16 MJ/ m2 Concrete from recycled aggregate (26.4 kg concrete – 3.69 cement) Kg x80% (Lawson 1996, p.125) /1000 T/m2 x 50 km x 4.50 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 4.08 MJ/ m2 Green Star, Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and use recycled materials Transportation There are construction material suppliers if the materials come from the inside of estate the distance will be over 50 km (60% x 36 kg/m2 Brick + 60% x 14.7 kg/m2 Hardwood and Joist) 36.3 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 50 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson p. 12) = 8.16 MJ/ m2 Concrete from recycled aggregate (26.4 kg concrete – 3.69 cement) Kg x2% (Lawson 1996, p.125, Legend 2) /1000 T/m2 x 50 km x 4.50 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 1.02 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers There are three construction material suppliers, (Devonport TAS 2014), the materials come from the interstate from Devonport of Tasmania. The decreased distance will be 237 Devonport - 157 Launceston km = 80 km 27.78 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) /1000 T/m2 x 80 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12 = 10 MJ/ m2 Life cycle stages of Construction Embodied Energy Standard building Pre-Construction Construction Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Floor 202 Potential Embodied Energy to Replace and Save Concrete from recycled aggregate 1.52 MJ/m2 Use recycled brick 54MJ/m2 67% Use recycled aggregate for brick Use recycled Hardwood 32.4 MJ/m2 2KJ/m2 40% saving energy in production 36 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing 8.16 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by reusing 4.08 MJ/ m2 51.76 MJ/m2 293MJ/m2 Geopolymer concrete 20.66 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 10 MJ/ m2 117.06 MJ/m2 168.82 MJ/m2 293MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study One – Friendly Beaches Lodge Table A.C.2: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emission (embodied energy) in an elevated timber floor (lower level) construction system. Case Study One (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Concrete from recycled Use recycled Hardwood 32.4 aggregate 0 0.38 MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Green Star, Total Floor 293 MJ/m2 Geopolymer concrete 12.82 MJ/ m2 Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Embodied Energy Basic Decreased transportation by reusing 8.16 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by reusing 1.53 MJ/ m2 10.07 MJ/ m2 55.29 MJ/m2 45.22 MJ/m2 293 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.3: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber frame, single skin timber wall construction system. Case Study One (see Lawson 1996, p. 125) Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Reuse the recycled materials Building materials and elements Use timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber (GBCA 2008) Use recycled softwood stud, 60% Reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm, p.127, 60% x 37 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p.125) = 22.2 MJ/m2 - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse the recycled materials Use recycled softwood stud, 60% Reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm =, 60% x 37 MJ/m2 (p.125, L. 7) = 22.2 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling There are construction material suppliers if the materials come from the inside of state, the distance will be over 50 km 7.15 kg/m2 Softwood + Softwood plate + …… = 22 kg/m2 22 x 60% kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 50 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson p. 12) = 2.97 MJ/ m2 Transportation Green Star Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling There are construction material suppliers if the materials come from the inside of estate. The distance will be over 50 km 7.15 kg/m2 Softwood + Softwood plate + …… = 22 kg/m2 22 x 60% kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 50 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson p. 12) = 2.97 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers There are three construction material suppliers, (Devonport TAS 2014), the materials come from interstate from Devonport of Tasmania. The decreased distance will be 237 Devonport - 157 Launceston km = 80 km 22 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 80 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 7.91 MJ/ m2 Areas that Embodied Energy can be reduced Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Embodied Energy to Replace and Save Measurable energy to reduce in Use thermal insulation 60% softwood stud + softwood plates with recycled Building materials and 22.2 MJ/m2 Use Recycle thermal insulation 16.43 aggregates 23.2 elements MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Walls General Construction system Decreased transportation by reusing 2.97MJ/ m2 26.17 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Standard 151MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 7.91 MJ/ m2 46.54 MJ/m2 72.71 MJ/m2 151MJ/ m2 61.83 MJ/m2 151MJ/ m2 203 Appendix C Case Study One – Friendly Beaches Lodge Table A.C.4: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber frame, single skin timber wall construction system. Case Study One (see Lawson, 1996. p. 125). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 60% softwood stud + softwood plates 22.2 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 151 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing 2.97MJ/ m2 2.97 MJ/ m2 25.17 MJ/m2 22.2 MJ/m2 151 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.5: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a timber frame, steel sheet roof. Case Study One (see Lawson 1996, p. 133). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Steel from average recycled content - Steel sheet from recycled contents {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996) – 20.50 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x 4.9 kg/ m2 = 85.75 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 34 MJ/m2 P. 133 L.2 (Design Coalition 2013) = 13.6 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 60% x 34 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 133) 20.4 MJ/m2 - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.825kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Building materials and elements Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel (Green Star Technical Manual, Materials) is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled contents) (GBCA 2008) is: - Steel sheet from recycled contents {38 MJ/Kg, P. 133 l.2 (Lawson 1996) – 20.50 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x 4.9 kg/m2 x 90% = 77.17 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber (Green Star Technical Manual, Materials), 95% of all timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 34 (Design Coalition 2013) = 13.6 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 55% x 34 MJ/m2 (Lawson, 1996, p. 133) = 18.7 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling There are construction material suppliers if the materials come from the outside of state, the distance will be Port Jackson (Port Jackson 2014) 297 - Thylacine (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km = over 100 km Reuse softwood trusses 11.15 (trusses 8.25, battens 2.9) kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 5.01 MJ/ m2 Transportation Green Star There are construction material suppliers if the materials come from the outside of state: the distance will be (Port Jackson (Port Jackson 2014) 297 - Thylacine (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km) = over 100 km Reuse softwood trusses 11.15 (trusses 8.25, battens 2.9) kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 5.01 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers There are construction material suppliers if the materials come from the inside of state: Local supplier is Skyline (2014) The saved distance will be (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km 19.99 kg/m2 (whole roof materials) /1000 T/m2 x 25.2 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12 = 2.26 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in carbon emissions Trusses from recycled timber 40% 13.6 Use recycled trusses 60% 20.4 MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Steel sheet from recycled content 85.75 Use recycled thermal insulation MJ/m2 17.57 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing trusses 5.01 MJ/ m2 330MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 2.26 MJ/ m2 104.36 MJ/m2 40.23 MJ/m2 Total Roof, Research 2 144.59 MJ/m 204 Embodied Energy Basic 330MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study One – Friendly Beaches Lodge Table A.C.6: Green Star, potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber frame, steel sheet roof construction system. Case Study One (see Lawson 1996, p. 133) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel sheet from 90% Recycled Use recycled trusses 55% 18.7 MJ/m2 contents = 77.17 MJ/m2 Trusses from recycled timber 40% 13.6 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 330 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing trusses 5.01 MJ/ m2 Green Star, Total Roof 18.7 MJ/m2 95.78 MJ/m2 114.48 MJ/m2 330 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.7: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber floor, timber walls, steel roof construction system. Case Study One. Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total, building system Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emissions to reduce 126.07 MJ/m2 163 MJ/m2 36 MJ/m2 20.66 MJ/m2 20.22 MJ/m2 20.17 MJ/m2 182.29 MJ/m2 203.83 MJ/m2 386.12 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 774 MJ/m2 774 MJ/m2 205 Appendix C Case Study Two – ACF Green Home A.C.1.2 Case Study Two – ACF Green Home Table A.C.8: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a concrete slab on ground floor construction system. Case Study Two (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Building materials and elements - Concrete from 80 % Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (290.4 concrete –39.43 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p.125) x 80% =16.67 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 3.882 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 53.96MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 (Green Star Technical Manual, Materials) is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GBCA 2008) is: embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GCBA 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA) 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (290.4 concrete –39.43 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 20% = 4.16 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 (Green Star Technical Manual, Steel) is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (GBCA 2008) is: 3.882 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 53.95 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacement Portland cement with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 290.4 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 97% = 39.43 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 39.43 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 220.83 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement 290.4 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = 24.38 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 24.38 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 136.59 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling There are three construction material suppliers, (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014), If the materials come from the interstate somewhere in Melbourne, (Boral 2014). The decreased distance will be 54.2 k Reduced transportation by Reusing aggregate, (290.4 kg/m2- 39.43 kg/m2) x 80% /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km (Lawson p. 12) =40.80 MJ/ m2 Transportation Green Star There are three construction material suppliers, (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014). If the materials come from somewhere in Melbourne, (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2 k Reduced transportation by reusing aggregate, (290.4 kg/m2- 39.43 kg/m2) /1000 T/m2 x 45.2 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) x 20% = 10.20 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers There are three construction material suppliers, (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014), If the materials come from somewhere in Melbourne, (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2 k (290.4kg aggregate + mesh 3.12kg) = 293.52 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1006, p. 12) = 15.04 MJ/ m2 Life cycle stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Concrete from 30% recycled aggregate Steel mesh, beams from average recycled = 16.67 MJ/m2 content = 53.96 MJ/m 645MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reuse aggregate 40.80 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement = 220.83 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 15.04 MJ/ m2 57.47 MJ/m2 Total Floor 206 Embodied Energy Basic 289.83 MJ/m2 347.30 MJ/m2 645MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study Two – ACF Green Home Table A.C.9: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110 mm concrete slab on ground floor construction system. Case Study Two (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for 90%Steel mesh from average recycled concrete = 4.16 MJ/m2 content 53.95MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Embodied Energy Basic 645 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 136.59 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reuse aggregate 15.04 MJ/m2 Green Star, Total Floor 19.20 MJ/m2 190.54 MJ/m2 2 209.74 MJ/m 645MJ/ m2 Table A.C.10: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed timber upper floor construction system. Case Study Two (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements 60% Recycled softwood joints (Design Coalition 2013) @ (600 c-c) 300x 500 mm + Timber flooring @ 18 mm particleboard 50 MJ/m2 + 91 MJ/m2 = 60% x 141 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) = 84.6 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Material-8 Timber Materials (Green Star Technical Manual) 95% of all timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber (GBCA 2008) 60% Recycled softwood joints (Design Coalition 2013) @ (600 c-c) 300x 500 mm + Timber flooring @ 18 mm particleboard 50 MJ/m2 + 91 MJ/m2= %60 x 141 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124 = 84.6 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling There are three construction material suppliers, (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014), If the materials come from somewhere in Melbourne, (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2 k 11.4 kg/m2x 60% /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 k x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 1.66 MJ/ m2 Green Star Transportation There are three construction material suppliers (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014). If the materials come somewhere in Melbourne (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2 k 11.4 kg/m2x 60% /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 k x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 1.66 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers There are three construction material suppliers, (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014). If the materials come from somewhere in Melbourne, (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2km 18.2 kg/m2 x 60% /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 2.66 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Floor Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in carbon emissions 60% recycled timber floor 84.6 MJ/m2 Saved energy in transportation by reusing 1.66 MJ/ m2 Embodied Energy Basic 147MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 2.66 MJ/ m2 1.66 MJ/m2 87.26 MJ/m2 147MJ/ m2 88.92 MJ/m2 207 Appendix C Case Study Two – ACF Green Home Table A.C.11: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed timber floor upper floor construction system. Case Study Two (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Floor 208 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 60% recycled timber floor 84.6 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 147 MJ/m2 Saved energy in transportation by reusing 1.66 MJ/ m2 84.6 MJ/m2 1.66 MJ/m2 86.26 MJ/m2 147 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study Two – ACF Green Home Table A.C.12: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed, clay brick veneer wall construction system. Case Study Two (see Lawson 1996, p. 127). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Reused recycled aggregates Reuse recycled aggregate for brick, 67% (BDA 2014; Tyrell and Goode 2014), 147 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p.127) x 67% x 0.083 MJ/kg = 8.17 MJ/ m2 Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements Use recycled softwood stud, 60% reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm = 60% x 33 MJ/m2= 19.8 MJ/m2 Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014). Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Reused materials and elements Use recycled softwood stud, 60% Reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm = 60% x 33 MJ/m2= 19.8 MJ/m2 Decreased and replaced energy Decrease energy US-made fly ash brick gains strength and durability from the chemical reaction of fly ash with However, 85 per cent less energy is used in production than in fired clay brick (Volz & Implementation water. Stovner 2010). Potential 40 per cent energy saving in brick manufacturing using 67% recycled container glass brick grog (BrDA2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014). Reduced energy 368 MJ/m2 x 40% = 147.2 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling There are three construction material suppliers, (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014). If the materials come somewhere in Melbourne, (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2km Reuse and Recycled aggregate for brick 147 kg/m2 x 67% /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 24.02 MJ/ m2 Reused the recycled softwood 8.1 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km = 1.97 MJ/ m2 Green Star Transportation There are three construction material suppliers (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014). If the materials come from somewhere in Melbourne, (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2km Reused the recycled softwood 8.1 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 1.97 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing suppliers There are three construction material suppliers, (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014). If the materials come from somewhere in Melbourne, (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2km 158 kg/m2 (brick +wood) /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 38.53 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to reduce 76% Use recycled 60% softwood stud + softwood plates 19.8 561MJ/ m2 in Building materials and aggregate for brick MJ/m2 Use Recycled thermal insulation 16.43 MJ/m2 elements 8.17 KJ/m2 Implementation 40% saving energy in production 147.2 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Saved energy in transportation Transportation Reuse of aggregate 24.02 MJ/ m2 Total Walls 179.39 KJ/m2 Reuse of softwood 1.97 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 38.53 MJ/ m2 77.09 MJ/m2 256.48 MJ/m2 561MJ/ m2 209 Appendix C Case Study Two – ACF Green Home Table A.C.13: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed, clay brick veneer wall. Case Study Two (see Lawson 1996, p. 127). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Wall 210 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 60% softwood stud + softwood plates 19.8 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 561 MJ/m2 Reuse of softwood 1.97 MJ/ m2 242.57 MJ/m2 21.77 MJ/m2 561 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study Two – ACF Green Home Table A.C.14: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed, concrete tile roof construction system. Case Study Two (see Lawson 1996, p. 134). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 43 (Design Coalition 2013) = 17.2 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 60% x 43 MJ/m2 = 25.8 MJ/m2 - Use insulation from recycled materials, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.6255kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Being small and modular in nature, concrete roof tile is less prone to waste. Roof tiles can be crushed and recycled (LEED 2014) Use tiles from recycled roof tiles, 92 MJ/m2 x 13% (LEED 2014) = 11.96 MJ/m2 Use tiles from recycled roof tiles (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) from 45% recycled content Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (44 concrete – 6.16 cement) Kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 134) x 45% = 0.083 x 37.84 kg/m2 x 50% (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) =1.57 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber (Green Star Technical Manual) Materials 95% of all timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 43 (Design Coalition 2013) = 17.2 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses, 55% x 43 MJ/m2 = 23.65 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling There are three construction material suppliers, (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014). If the materials come from somewhere in Melbourne (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2km. Decreased transportation by reusing of trusses 18.25 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p.134) /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 4.45 MJ/ m2 Green Star Transportation There are three construction material suppliers, (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014). If the materials come from somewhere in Melbourne (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2km. Reuse of trusses, 18.25 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 4.45 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing suppliers There are three construction material suppliers, (Melbourne Building Supplies 2014). If the materials come from somewhere in Melbourne (Boral 2014), the decreased distance will be 54.2km. 59.6 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 54.2 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 14.53 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emissions to reduce Trusses from recycled trusses Using recycled trusses 25.8 MJ/m2 Use recycled thermal insulation 17.57MJ/m 17.2 MJ/m2 Use recycled roof tiles 13%, 11.96 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing trusses. 4.45 MJ/ m2 240MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 14.53 MJ/ m2 21.65 MJ/m2 Total Roof Embodied Energy Basic 69.86 MJ/m2 91.51 MJ/m2 240MJ/ m2 211 Appendix C Case Study Two – ACF Green Home Table A.C.15: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed, concrete tile roof construction system. Case Study Two (see Lawson 1996, p. 134). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Softwood Trusses from Using recycled trusses 23.65 MJ/m2 recycled trusses 17.2 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 240 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by Reuse of truss 4.45 MJ/ m2 Green Star, Total Roof 21.51 MJ/ m2 45.16 MJ/m 23.65 MJ/m2 2 240 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.16: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in concrete slab floor, timber framed brick veneer walls, timber framed concrete tile roof. Case Study Two. Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements (Tables 1,2,3,) Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation (Tables 1,2 and 3) Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation (Tables 1,2 and 3) Total, building system 212 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emissions to Reduce 42.04 MJ/m2 230.12 MJ/m2 147.2 MJ/m2 220.83 MJ/ m2 49.42 MJ/m2 94.25 MJ/m2 238.66 MJ/m2 545.20 MJ/m2 783.86 MJ/m 2 Embodied Energy Basic 1623 MJ/m2 1623 MJ/m2 Appendix C Case Study – Three Display Project Home A.C.1.3 Case Study – Three Display Project Home Table A.C.17: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study Three (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Building materials and elements - Concrete from 80% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014) embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (290.4 concrete –39.43 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p.125) x 80% = 16.67 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh + Edge beams from average recycled content = 3.882 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p13) 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 53.96MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 (Green Star Technical Manual) Materials is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GCBA 2008) is: - Concrete from 30% Recycled aggregate embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (290.4 concrete –39.43 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 20% = 4.16 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 (Green Star Technical Manual) steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (GBCA 2008) is: 3.882 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 48.56 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacement by recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 290.4 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 97% = 39.43 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 39.43 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 220.83 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (GBCA 2008) 290.4 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = 24.38 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 24.38 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) x 60% = 81.91 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling There are construction material suppliers, if the materials come from the outside of stat, the distance will be (Port Jackson 2014) 297 - (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km = over 100km Reduced transportation by reusing aggregate, (290.4 kg/m2- 39.43 kg/m2) x80% /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 90.32 MJ/ m2 Green Star Transportation There are construction material suppliers, if the materials come from the outside of stat, the distance will be (Port Jackson 2014) 297 - (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km = over 100km Reduced transportation by reusing aggregate, (290.4 kg/m2- 39.43 kg/m2) /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) x 20% = 22.58 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers There is construction material supplier: If the materials come from a local supplier (Skyline 2014), the decreased distance will be 25.2 = km (290.4kg aggregate + mesh 3.12kg) = 293.52 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 25.2 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 33.28 MJ/ m2 Life cycle stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 30 % Concrete from recycled aggregate Steel mesh, beams from average recycled = 16.67 MJ/m2 content = 53.96 MJ/m Decreased transportation by reuse aggregate 90.32 MJ/m2 213 645MJ/m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement = 220.83 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 33.28 MJ/ m2 106.99 MJ/m2 Total Floor Embodied Energy Basic 308.07 MJ/m2 415.06 MJ/m2 645MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study – Three Display Project Home Table A.C.18: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study Three (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Floor 214 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for 90%Steel mesh from average recycled concrete = 4.16 MJ/m2 content 48.56 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 645 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 81.91 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reuse aggregate 22.58 MJ/m2 26.74 MJ/m2 130.47 MJ/m2 157.21 MJ/m2 645MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study – Three Display Project Home Table A.C.19: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed, clay brick veneer wall (Lawson 1996, p. 127). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Reused the recycled aggregates Reuse recycled aggregate for brick, 67% (BDA 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014), 147 kg/m2 (p.127, L 6) x 67% x 0.083 MJ/kg = 8.17 MJ/ m2 Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements Use recycled softwood stud, 60% Reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm = 60% x 33 MJ/m2= 19.8 MJ/m2 - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Reused materials and elements Material-3 (Green Star Technical Manual) Materials is considered maximum 80% reused materials, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 80% reused material) (GCBA 2014) Material-8 Timber (Green Star Technical Manual) Materials, 95% of all timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber - Use recycled softwood stud, 60% Reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm = 60% x 33 MJ/m2= 19.8 MJ/m2 Implementation Potential 40 per cent energy savings in brick manufacturing using 67% recycled container glass brick grog (BCA 2014, Tyrell & Goode 2014). Reduced energy 368 MJ/m2 x 40% = 147.2 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of the waste by reusing and recycling If materials come from the outside of state, distance will be (Port Jackson (Port Jackson 2014) 297 - (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km = over 100 km Reuse and Recycled aggregate for brick 147 kg/m2 x 67% /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 44.32 MJ/ m2 Reused recycled softwood 8.1 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996. p.12) = 3.64 MJ/ m2 Transportation Green Star If materials come from the outside of state, distance will be (Port Jackson (Port Jackson 2014) 297 - (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km = over 100 km Reused recycled softwood 8.1 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x100 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson p.12) = 3.64 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing suppliers If materials come from the inside of state, local supplier is Skyline (2014), the saved distance will be (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km 158 kg/m2 (brick +wood) /1000 T/m2 x 25.2 km x4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 17.91 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to reduce in 20% Use recycled 60% softwood stud + softwood plates 19.8 2 561MJ/ m2 contents brick 8.17 Building materials and MJ/m Use Recycle thermal insulation 16.43 MJ/m2 elements KJ/m2 Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Walls 40% saving energy in production 147.2 MJ/m2 Saved energy in transportation Reuse of aggregate 44.32 MJ/ m2 Reuse of softwood 3.64 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 17.91 MJ/ m2 199.69 KJ/m2 57.78 MJ/m2 257.47 MJ/m2 561MJ/ m2 Table A.C.20: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a timber framed, clay brick veneer wall. Case Study Three (see Lawson 1996, p. 127). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 60% softwood stud + softwood plates 19.8 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 561 MJ/m2 Reuse of softwood 3.64 MJ/ m2 23.44 MJ/m2 23.44 MJ/m2 561 MJ/ m2 215 Appendix C Case Study – Three Display Project Home Table A.C.21: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a timber framed, steel sheet roof. Case Study Three (see Lawson 1996, p. 133). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Steel from average recycled content - Steel sheet from recycled contents {38 MJ/Kg – 20.50 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x 4.9 kg/ m2 = 85.75 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements - Softwood trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 34 MJ/m2 P. 133 L.2 (Design Coalition 2013) = 13.6 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 60% x 34 MJ/m2 = 20.4 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.825kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) - Use recycled thermal insulation = 40 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel (Green Star Technical Manual) Materials is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled contents) (GBCA 2008) is: - Steel sheet from recycled contents {8 MJ/Kg – 20.50 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x 4.9 kg/ m2 x 90% = 77.17 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber (Green Star Technical Manual) 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 34 (Design Coalition 2013) = 13.6 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 55% x 34 MJ/m2 = 18.7 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If the materials come from outside the state, the distance will be (Port Jackson 2014) 297 (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km) = over 100 km Reuse softwood trusses 11.15(trusses 8.25, battens 2.9,) kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km = 5.01 MJ/ m2 Green Star Transportation If the materials come from outside the state, the distance will be (Port Jackson 2014) 297 (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km) = over 100 km Reuse softwood trusses 11.15 (trusses 8.25, battens 2.9) kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km = 5.01 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers If materials come from the inside of state, local supplier is Skyline (2014). The saved distance will be (Thylacine 2014) 25.2 km 19.99 kg/m2 (whole roof materials) /1000 T/m2 x 25.2 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km = 2.26 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Roof 216 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in carbon emissions Trusses from recycled timber 40% Use recycled trusses 60% 13.6 MJ/m2 20.4 MJ/m2 Steel sheet from recycled content Use recycled thermal insulation = 17.57 MJ/m2 85.75 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing trusses 5.01 MJ/ m2 Embodied Energy Basic 330MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 2.26 MJ/ m2 104.36 MJ/m2 40.23 MJ/m2 144.59 MJ/m2 330MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study – Three Display Project Home Table A.C.22: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in timber framed, steel sheet roof. Case Study Three (see Lawson 1996, p. 133). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel sheet from 90% Recycled Use recycled trusses 55% 18.7 contents = 77.17 MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Trusses from recycled timber 40% 13.6 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Embodied Energy Basic 330 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing trusses 5.01 MJ/ m2 Green Star, Total Roof 18.7 MJ/m2 95.78 MJ/m2 114.48 MJ/m2 330 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.23: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in building system: concrete slab floor, timber framed brick veneer walls, timber framed steel sheet roof. Case Study Three (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emissions to Reduce 124.19 MJ/m2 128.16 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation 147.2 MJ/m2 220.83 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation 139.65 MJ/m2 57.09 MJ/m2 411.04 MJ/m2 406.08 MJ/m2 Total, building system 817.12 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 1536 MJ/m2 1536 MJ/m2 217 Appendix C Case Study Four – Civil Engineering Laboratory, USQ A.C.1.4 Case Study Four – Civil Engineering Laboratory, USQ 2013 Table A.C.24: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 200 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study Four (see Lawson 1996, p. 125). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Reused the recycled aggregates for concrete Building materials and elements - Concrete from 80% recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083MJ/Kg x (381 kg/m2concrete – 51.73 kg/m2 cement) x 80% = 21.84 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 5.148 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 71.55 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GBCA 2008) is: - Concrete from 30% recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (381 kg/m2concrete – 51.73kg/m2 cement) x 20% = 5.46 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (GBCA 2008) is: 5.148 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 64.39 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacement with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 381kg/m2 x 14% cement (Lawson 1996) 97% = 51.73 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 51.73 kg cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg = 289.68 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (GBCA 2008) 381kg/m2 x 14% cement 60% = 32 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 32 kg cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg = 179.2 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling Reduced transportation by reusing aggregate (381concrete -51.73 cement) kg/m2 x 80% /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 53.2 MJ/ m2 Green Star Transportation Reduced transportation by reusing aggregate, (381concrete -51.73 cement) kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) x 20% = 13.3 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing suppliers Construction material supplier: BIG Mate Projects, Springfield QLD (BIG Mate 2014) If the materials come somewhere in Brisbane: Landscape Supplies, 488 Loganlea Rd, Slacks Creek QLD 4127 (Nuway 2014) The hypothetically decreased distance will be 32.3 km 381kg/m2 concrete +5.148 Kg/m2 steel) /1000 T/m2 x32.3 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 56.12 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Floor 218 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in carbon emissions 30 % Concrete from recycled 100%Steel mesh, beams from average aggregate = 21.84 MJ/m2 recycled content = 71.55 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Standard 908 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement = 289.68 MJ/ m2 Decreased Energy in transportation Decreased transportation by localizing by reuse aggregate 53.2 MJ/m2 56.12 MJ/ m2 75.04 MJ/m2 417.35 MJ/m2 2 492.39 MJ/m 908MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study Four – Civil Engineering Laboratory, USQ Table A.C.25: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 200 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study Four (see Lawson 1996, p. 125). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Floor Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction %20Recycled aggregate for 90%Steel mesh from average recycled concrete =5.46 MJ/m2 content 64.39 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 908 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 179.2 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reuse aggregate 13.3 MJ/m2 18.76 MJ/m2 243.59 MJ/m2 2 262.35 MJ/m 908 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.26: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Four (Lawson 1996, p. 129) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reused recycled materials as aggregate for concrete block - Concrete from 100% recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (275 Kg concrete – 24.47 kg cement) = 20.79 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled materials for concrete block Material-5 (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GBCA 2008) is: Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (275 Kg concrete – 24.47 kg cement) x 20% = 4.15 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete block or 100% replacement with recycled cement substitute results 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Cement = 89Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) / 1000 x 275 = 24.47 Kg/ m2 Reduced cement 24.47 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg = 137.03 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 24.47 kg Cement/m2 x 60% x 5.6 MJ/kg = 82.21 MJ/ m2 Transportation Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If the materials come from inside of state from local supplier, Big Mate Projects, Springfield QLD (BIG Mate 2014), the saved distance will be 44.9 km Reduced transport for recycled materials for reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg.m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km = 50.62 MJ/ m2 Green Star Reduced transport for Recycled materials for Reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson p. 12) x 20% =10.12 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers Landscape Supplies, 488 Loganlea Rd, Slacks Creek QLD 4127 (Nuway 2014) The hypothetically decreased distance will be 32.3km 275 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 32.3 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km = 39.9 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction Measurable energy to reduce in Use recycled materials as aggregate 20.79 MJ/ m2 Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Walls Decreased transportation by reusing 50.62 MJ/ m2 Embodied Energy Basic 511MJ/ m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement 137.03 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 39.9 MJ/m2 71.41 MJ/ m2 176.93 MJ/ m2 248.34 MJ/m2 511MJ/ m2 219 Appendix C Case Study Four – Civil Engineering Laboratory, USQ Table A.C.27: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Four (see Lawson 1996, p. 129). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction %20Recycled aggregate for concrete block = 4.15 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 511 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 82.21 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing 10.12 MJ/ m2 14.27 MJ/m2 82.21 MJ/m2 511 MJ/ m2 2 96.48 MJ/m Table A.C.28: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed, steel sheet roof. Case Study Four. (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Steel from average recycled content - Steel sheet from average recycled content = 5.6 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.135) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 100.24 MJ/m2 - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 = 61.61 MJ/m2 Reuse materials and elements - Use 40% recycled trusses (UK Indemand 2014), 40% x 3.734 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg = 50.78 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.55kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 steel (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled contents) (GBCA 2008) is: - Steel sheet from average recycled content = 5.6 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg - 20.10 MJ/Kg} x 90% = 90.21 MJ/m2 - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 x 90% = 55.44 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If the materials come from inside state (BIG Mate 2014), the saved distance will be 44/9 km Reuse recycled trusses 40% x 3.734 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km = 0.30 MJ/ m2 Transportation Decreased transportation by localizing suppliers Landscape Supplies, 488 Loganlea Rd, Slacks Creek QLD 4127 (Nuway 2014) considering the local supplier (BIG Mate 2014), the hypothetically decreased distance will be 32.3 = km 9.334 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 32.3 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson p. 12) = 1.35 MJ/ m2 Construction Embodied Energy Life Cycle Stages of Basic Pre-Construction Construction building Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction Measurable energy to Steel frame from average Use recycled trusses = 50.78 MJ/m2 reduce in Building recycled contents 61.61 MJ/m2 Use Recycled insulation = 17.57 401 MJ/ m2 Steel Sheet from recycled materials and MJ/m2 contents 100.24 MJ/m2 elements Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Roof Decreased transportation by reusing 0.30 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing1.35 MJ/m2 161.85 MJ/m2 70 MJ/m2 2 231.85 MJ/m 220 401MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study Four – Civil Engineering Laboratory, USQ Table A.C.29. Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel parallel chord trussed sheet roof. Case Study Four (see Lawson 1996, p. 135). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel sheet from 90% Recycled contents = 90.21 MJ/m2 Steel frame from 90% Recycled contents = 55.44 MJ/m2 Green Star, Total Roof 145.65 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 401 MJ/m2 401 MJ/ m2 145.65 MJ/m2 Table A.C.30: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in concrete slab floor, concrete upper floor, concrete block walls, steel framed, steel sheet roof. Case Study Four. Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emissions to Reduce 204.48 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total, building system 139.9 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 2570 MJ/m2 426.71 MJ/m2 103.82 MJ/m2 97.67 MJ/m2 308.30 MJ/m2 664.28 MJ/m2 2 972.58 MJ/m 2570 MJ/m2 221 Appendix C Case Study Five – Olympics Velodrome Building A.C.1.5 Case Study Five – Olympics Velodrome Building, London 2012 Table A.C.31: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 200 mm hollow core precast concrete slab floor. Case Study Five (Lawson 1996, p. 125). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Building materials and elements Reused the recycled aggregates for concrete - Concrete from 80% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014) embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (297 + 84) x (381 kg/m2concrete – 51.73kg/m2 cement) x 80% = 21.84 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 5.148 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 71.55MJ/m2 Green Star, reused recycled aggregates for concrete Material-5 (Green Star Technical Manual, Materials) is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GBCA 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% recycled aggregate (Uche 2008PCA) 2014) embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (381kg/m2concrete – 51.73kg/m2 cement) x 20% = 5.46 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 (Green Star Technical Manual) Steel is considered maximum 60%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (GBCA 2008) is: 5.148 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 64.40 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and replaced energy in reduced cement Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacement with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 381 kg/m2 x 14% cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 97% = 51.73 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 51.73 kg cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg = 289.74 MJ/ m2 Reduced Embodied Energy Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (GBCA 2008) 381kg/m2 x 14% Cement x 60% = 32 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 32 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg = 179.2 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling Transport of material, one stop supplier. If the materials come from London, the saved distance will be over 100 km (Aggregate Industries 2014) (297 + 5.148 + 84) 386.14 kg/m2x 80% /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJ/ton/km = 125.87 MJ/ m2 Green Star (297 + 5.148 + 84) 386.14 kg/m2 x 20% /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJ/ton/km = 31.47 MJ/ m2 Transportation Improved and Replaced Renewable energy in transportation 63% transported by rail or water (London Olympics 2012) 386.148 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km = 157.3 MJ/ton/km x 63% = 99.1 MJ/M2 Transportation Energy consumption Mode Energy Consumption (MJtonne/km) UK Road 4.50 Rail 0.60 Ship 0.25 Source: Lawson (1996, p. 12) Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce in %30Recycled aggregate for 100% Steel from average recycled concrete 21.84 MJ/m2 content 71.55MJ/m2 Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Decreased transportation by reuse 125.87 MJ/ m2 Transportation Total Floor 222 Embodied Energy Basic 908 MJ/m2 Geopolymer 100% Cement Replacement 289.74 MJ/m2 Replaced Energy in transportation 99.1 MJ/M2 147.71MJ/m2 460.39 MJ/m2 2 608.10 MJ/m 908MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study Five – Olympics Velodrome Building Table A.C.32: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 200 mm hollow core precast concrete slab floor. Case Study Five (Lawson 1996, p. 125). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Floor Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in Carbon Emissions (Embodied Energy) 20% Recycled aggregate for 90% Steel mesh from average recycled concrete = 5.46 MJ/m2 content 64.4 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 908 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacement 179.2 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reuse aggregate 31.47 MJ/m2 36.93 MJ/m2 243.6 MJ/m2 280.53 MJ/m2 908 MJ/ m2 223 Appendix C Case Study Five – Olympics Velodrome Building Table A.C.33: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 125 mm elevated concrete upper floor. Case Study Five (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Reused recycled aggregate for concrete - Concrete from 80% recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (300 Kg concrete – 40.74 kg cement) x 80% =17.20 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 7.15 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 99.38 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GBCA 2008) is: Concrete from 20% recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg, saved embodied energy = 0.083 MJ/Kg x (300 Kg concrete – 40.74 kg cement) x 20% = 4.30 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 (Green Star Technical Manual, Steel) is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (GBCA 2008) is: 7.15 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 89.44 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacement by recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results in 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 300kg/m2 x 14% Cement x 97% = 40.74 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 40.74 kg cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg = 228.14 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (GBCA 2008) 300kg/m2 x 14% Cement x 60% = 25.2 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 25.2 kg cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg = 141.12 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling Waste materials have been brought from inside of state, therefore the saved energy is at least: Aggregate 300kg/m2 x 80% /1000 T/m2x100 km x {(4.5– (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJ/ton/km = 97.78 MJ/ m2 Green Star Waste materials have been brought from inside of state, therefore the saved energy is at least: Aggregate 300 kg/m2 x 20% /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x {(4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJ/ton/km = 24.45 MJ/ m2 Transportation Improved and Replaced Renewable energy in transportation 63% transported by rail or water (London Olympics 2012) 307.153 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km {4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJton/km x 63% = 78.85 MJ/m2 Reduced Transportation Energy consumption by type of transportation Mode Energy Consumption (MJtonne/km) UK Road 4.50 Rail 0.60 Ship 0.25 Source: Lawson (1996, p. 12) Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emissions (Embodied Energy) to Reduce Measurable energy to reduce in 30% Recycled aggregate for concrete Steel mesh from average recycled content 99.38MJ/m2 750MJ/m2 Building materials and 17.20 MJ/m2 elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Floor 224 Decreased transportation by reusing 97.78 MJ/m2 Use of 40% Fly ash mix = 228.14 MJ/m2 Replaced Energy in transportation 78.85 MJ/m2 114.98 MJ/m2 406.37 MJ/m2 521.35 MJ/m2 750MJ/m2 Appendix C Case Study Five – Olympics Velodrome Building Table A.C.34: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in 125 mm elevated concrete upper floor. Case Study Five (see Lawson 1996, p. 124) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Floor Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for 90% Steel mesh from average recycled concrete = 4.30 MJ/m2 content 89.44 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 750 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacement 141.12 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reuse aggregate 24,45MJ/m2 28.75 MJ/m2 230.56 MJ/m2 2 259.31 MJ/m 750 MJ/ m2 225 Appendix C Case Study Five – Olympics Velodrome Building Table A.C.35: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Five (see Lawson 1996, p. 129). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Building materials and elements Reused recycled materials as aggregate for concrete block - Concrete from 100% recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA) 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (275 Kg concrete – 24.47 kg cement) = 20.79 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled materials for concrete block Material-5 (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GBCA 2008) is: Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (275 Kg concrete – 24.47 kg cement) x 20% = 4.15 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete block or 100% replacement recycled cement substitute results in 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Portland cement = 89Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) /1000 x 275 = 24.47 Kg/m2 Reduced Portland cement 24.47 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg = 137.03 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (GBCA 2008) 24.47 kg cement/m2 x 60% x 5.6 MJ/kg = 82.21 MJ/ m2 Transportation Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If materials come from London, the saved distance will be over 100 km Reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg.m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 – {(0.6 +0.25) / 2} MJtonne/km = 102.09 MJ/ m2 Green Star Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If materials come from London, the saved distance will be over 100 km Reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg.m2 x 20% /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 – {(0.6 +0.25) / 2} MJtonne/km = 20 41 MJ/ m2 Improved and replaced renewable energy in transportation 63% transported by rail or water (London Olympics 2012) 299.57 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km {4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJton/km x %63 = 76.90 MJ/m2 Reduced Transportation Energy consumption by type of transportation Mode Energy Consumption (MJtonne/km) UK Road 4.50 Rail 0.60 Ship 0.25 Source: Lawson (1996, p. 12) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Use 100% recycled aggregates 20.79 MJ/ m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Replaced Energy in transportation 76.90 MJ/m2 122.88 MJ/ m2 226 511MJ/ m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement 137.03 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce Decreased transportation by reusing in Transportation 102.09 MJ/m2 Total Walls Embodied Energy Standard 213.93 MJ/ m2 2 336.81 MJ/ m 511MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study Five – Olympics Velodrome Building Table A.C.36: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Five (see Lawson 1996, p. 129). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate and 60% replaced cement for concrete block = 4.15 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation 511 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, replacing 60% of cement 82.21 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Wall Embodied Energy Basic Decreased transportation by reusing 20 41 MJ/ m2 82.21 MJ/m2 24.56 MJ/m2 106.77 MJ/m2 511 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.37: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed timber weatherboard wall. Case Study Five (see Lawson 1996, p. 129). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Building materials and elements Steel from average recycled content - Steel frame from average recycled content = 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 3.342 KJ/Kg X 13.9 Kg/ m2 = 46.45 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Reuse softwood + softwood plates + softwood weatherboard = 74 MJ/m2 (JLL 2012) Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled contents) (GBCA 2008) is: - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x 3.342 kg/ m2 x 90% = 55.14 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber (Green Star Technical Manual) 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber Reuse softwood + softwood plates + softwood weatherboard = 74 MJ/m2 x 95% = 70.3 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If materials come from London, the saved distance will be over 100 km 22kg.m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km = 9.89 MJ/ m2 Improved and Replaced Renewable energy in transportation 63% Transported by rail or water (London Olympics 2012) Transportation 14.32 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km {4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJton/km x %63 = 3.67 MJ/m2 Reduced Transportation Energy consumption by type of transportation Mode Energy Consumption (MJtonne/km) UK Road 4.50 Rail 0.60 Ship 0.25 Source: Lawson p. 12 (Lawson 1996) Life Cycle Stages of Construction Embodied Energy building Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce Steel frame from recycled Use recycled softwood + in Building materials and content 46.45 MJ/m2 weatherboard 74 MJ/m2 238 MJ/ m2 elements Measurable energy to reduce Decreased transportation by in Transportation reuse= 9.89 MJ/ m2 Total Walls Replaced Energy in transportation 3.67 MJ/m2 56.34 MJ/m2 77.67 MJ/m2 2 134.01 MJ/m 238 MJ/ m2 227 Appendix C Case Study Five – Olympics Velodrome Building Table A.C.38: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed timber weatherboard wall. Case Study Five (Lawson 1996). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel frame from 90% Recycled Use recycled softwood + weatherboard contents = 55.14 MJ/m2 70.3 MJ/m2 Green Star, Total Wall 55.14 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 238 MJ/m2 70.3 MJ/m2 238 MJ/ m2 125.44 MJ/m2 Table A.C.39: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed fabric roof (hemp wrap). Case Study Five (Lawson 1996). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Building materials and elements Steel from average recycled content - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg – 20.50 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 = 65.34 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements - Use of recycled frame and pipes - Velodrome has high percentage of recycled content and leftover gas pipes make up the Olympic Stadium’s ring beam (Karven 2012). The structure involved the use of 28% recycled materials (Ingenia 2014). - Use 40% recycled trusses (UK Indemand 2014) 40% x 3.734 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996) = 50.78 MJ/m2 Reduce Materials use in design The Velodrome is 50% lighter than Beijing stadium (New Steel Construction 2010). A materially efficient doublecurved cable net design reduced the embodied carbon by 27% compared to a steel arch option (UK Indemand 2014). - 20% reduction in design x 3.734 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996) = 25.39 MJ/m2 Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled contents) (GBCA 2008) is: - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg – 20.50 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 x 90% = 58.8 MJ/m2 Reduce Materials use in design Material-10 dematerialisation (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered using 20% less steel - 20% reduction in design x 3.734 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg = 25.39 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If materials come from London, the saved distance will be over 100 km (3.384 kg/m2 steel frame + 3.384 x 20% kg/m2) /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km = 0.82 MJ/ m2 Green Star Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If materials come from London, the saved distance will be over 100 km 3.384 x 20% kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km = 0.30 MJ/ m2 Transportation Improved and Replaced Renewable energy in transportation 63% Transported by rail or water (London Olympics 2012) 14.32 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km {4.5 – (0.6 + 0.25) /2} MJton/km x %63 = 2.39 MJ/m2 Reduced Transportation Energy consumption by type of transportation Mode Energy Consumption (MJtonne/km) UK Road 4.50 Rail 0.60 Ship 0.25 Source: Lawson (1996, p. 12) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Roof 228 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 100% Steel frame from average recycled Use recycled elements = contents 65.34 MJ/m2 50.78 MJ/m2 20% reduce steel in design 25.39 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reuse 0.82 MJ/ m2 66.16MJ/m2 Standard 282MJ/m2 Decreased energy by replacing 2.39 MJ/m2 78.56 MJ/m2 144.72 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy 282MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study Five – Olympics Velodrome Building Table A.C.40: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed fabric roof (hemp wrap). Case Study Five (see Lawson 1996). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 90% Steel from recycled 20% reduce steel in design 25.39 MJ/m2 contents 58.8 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Embodied Energy Basic 282 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reduce in design 0.3 MJ/ m2 Green Star, Total Roof 59.1 MJ/m2 25.39 MJ/m2 84.49 MJ/m2 282 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.41: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in concrete slab floor, concrete upper floor, concrete block walls, steel framed, fabric roof. Case Study Five. Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total, building system Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emissions (Embodied Energy) to Reduce 171.62 MJ/m2 321.10 358.72 MJ/m2 - 654.91 MJ/m2 336.45 MJ/m2 260.91 MJ/m2 508.07 MJ/m2 1236.92 MJ/m2 1744.99 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 2689 MJ/m2 2689 MJ/m2 229 Appendix C Case Study Six – Multi Sports Building, USQ A.C.1.6 Case Study Six – Multi Sports Building, USQ 2013 Table A.C.42: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study Six (Lawson 1996). Potential carbon reduction by this research and Green tool Building materials and elements Reused recycled aggregate for concrete - Concrete from 80% recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014) embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = 0.083 MJ/Kg x (290.4 Kg concrete – 24.38 kg cement) x 80% = 17.65 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 3.882 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 53.96MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GBCA 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = 0.083 MJ/Kg x (290.4 Kg concrete – 24.38 kg cement) x 20% = 4.41 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (GBCA 2008) is: 3.882 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 53.95 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacement by recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 290.4 kg/m x 14% Cement x 97% = 39.43 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 39.43 kg cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg = 220.83 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (GBCA 2008) 290.4 kg/m2 x 14% cement x 60% = 24.38 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 24.38 kg cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg = 136.59 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If the materials come from local supplier Big Mate Projects, Springfield QLD (BIG Mate 2014), the saved distance will be 44.9 km Reduced transportation by reusing aggregate, 80% x 290.4 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km = 46.93 MJ/ m2 Transportation Green Star Reduced transportation by reusing aggregate, 290.4 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJ/ton/km x 20% = 11.73 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing suppliers Local construction material supplier is Big Mate Projects, Springfield QLD (BIG Mate 2014) If the materials come from somewhere in Brisbane: Landscape Supplies, 488 Loganlea Rd, Slacks Creek QLD 4127 (Nuway 2014) The hypothetically decreased distance will be 32.3 = km (290.4kg aggregate, mesh 3.12kg) = 293.52 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 32.3 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km = 42.66 MJ/ m2 Life cycle stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 30% Concrete from recycled aggregate = Steel mesh, beams from average recycled content = 53.96 MJ/m 17.65 MJ/m2 230 Basic 645MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reuse aggregate 46.93 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, replacing 97% of cement = 220.83 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 42.66 MJ/ m2 64.58 MJ/m2 Total Floor Embodied Energy 317.45 MJ/m2 382.03 MJ/m2 645MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study Six – Multi Sports Building, USQ Table A.C.43: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 110 mm concrete slab on ground floor. Case Study Six (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Floor Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction %20 Recycled aggregate for 90%Steel mesh from average recycled concrete = 4.41 MJ/m2 content 53.95MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 645 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 136.59 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reuse aggregate 11.73 MJ/m2 16.14 MJ/m2 190.54 MJ/m2 2 206.68 MJ/m 645MJ/ m2 231 Appendix C Case Study Six – Multi Sports Building, USQ Table A.C.44: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 125 mm elevated concrete upper floor. Case Study Six (see Lawson 1996, p. 124). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled aggregate for concrete - Concrete from 80% recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = 0.083 MJ/Kg x (300 Kg concrete – 40.74kg) (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 80% = 17.20 MJ/m2 -----Embodied energy of the floor = 497 MJ/m2, Carbon emission = 497 MJ/m2 x 0.098 kg CO2/ kg = 48.70 kg CO2/ m2 Building materials and elements The reduced embodied energy = 17.20 MJ/m2 Reduced carbon emission = 17.20 MJ/m2 x 0.098 kg CO2/ kg = 1.68 kg CO2/ m2 Therefore 4.06% emissions reduction --------------------Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 7.15 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg (GreenSpec 201)} = 99.38 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GBCA 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008: PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = 0.083 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x (300 Kg concrete – 40.74kg) (Lawson 1996, p.125) x 20% = 4.30 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 (Green Star Technical Manual) Steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (GBCA 2008) is: 7.15 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg (GreenSpec 2015)} = 89.44 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacement with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 300kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 97% = 40.74 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 40.74 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 228.14 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (GBCA 2008) 300kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) x 60% = 25.2 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 25.2 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 141.12 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If the materials come from locally, the saved distance will be 44.9 km Reduced transportation by reusing 80% x 307.12 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 49.63 MJ/ m2 Green Star If the materials come from locally, the saved distance will be 44.9 km Transportation Reduced transportation by reusing 307.12 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) 20% = 12.41 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers Landscape Supplies, 488 Loganlea Rd, Slacks Creek QLD 4127 (Nuway 2014) The hypothetically decreased distance will be 32.3 = km (Nuway 2014) 307.12 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 32.3 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 44.63 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Floor 232 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction 30% Recycled aggregate for concrete 17.20 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing 49.63 MJ/ m2 Steel mesh from average recycled content 99.38MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 750MJ/m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement 228.14 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 44.63 MJ/ m2 66.83 MJ/m2 372.15 MJ/m2 438.98 MJ/m2 750MJ/m2 Appendix C Case Study Six – Multi Sports Building, USQ Table A.C.45: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in 125 mm elevated concrete upper floor. Case Study Six (Lawson 1996, p. 124). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for 90%Steel mesh from average recycled concrete 4.30 MJ/m2 content 89.44MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total elevated Floor Embodied Energy Basic 750 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacement 141.12 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing 12.41 MJ/ m2 16.71 MJ/m2 230.56 MJ/m2 2 247.27 MJ/m 750MJ/ m2 Table A.C.46: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Six (Lawson 1996, p. 129) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled materials as aggregate for concrete block Building materials and elements Implementation - Concrete from 100% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (275 Kg concrete – 24.47 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, p.129) = 20.79 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled materials for concrete block Material-5 (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (GCBA 2008) is: Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (275 Kg concrete – 24.47 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 129) x 20% = 4.15 MJ/m2 Decreased and replaced energy Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete block or 100% replacement recycled cement substitute results in 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Cement = 89Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) / 1000 x 275 = 24.47 Kg/ m2 Reduced cement 24.47 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 137.03 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (GBCA 2008) 24.47 kg Cement/m2 x 60% x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 82.21 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If the materials come from local supplier, Big Mate Projects, Springfield QLD (BIG Mate 2014), the saved distance will be 44/9 km Reduced transport for Recycled materials for Reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg.m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 50.62 MJ/ m2 Green Star Transportation Reduced transport for Recycled materials for Reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg.m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) x 20% = 10.12 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing the suppliers Landscape Supplies, 488 Loganlea Rd, Slacks Creek QLD 4127 (Nuway 2014) The hypothetically decreased distance will be 32.3 km (Nuway 2014) 275 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 32.3 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 39.9 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Basic Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) to reduce Measurable energy to reduce in Use recycled materials as aggregate 20.79 MJ/ m2 511MJ/ m2 Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Walls Decreased transportation by reusing 50.62 MJ/ m2 71.41 MJ/ m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement 137.03 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by localizing 39.9 MJ/m2 176.93 MJ/ m2 248.34 MJ/m2 511MJ/ m2 233 Appendix C Case Study Six – Multi Sports Building, USQ Table A.C.47: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall. Case Study Six (Lawson 1996, p. 129). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for concrete block 4.15 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 511 MJ/m2 Geopolymer 60% Cement Replacements 82.21 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation by reusing 10.12 MJ/ m2 14.27 MJ/m2 82.21 MJ/m2 2 96.48 MJ/m 511 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.48: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel parallel chord trussed sheet roof. Case Study Six (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel from average recycled content - Steel sheet from average recycled content = 5.6 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.135) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 100.24 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 = 61.61 MJ/m2 Reuse materials and elements - Use 40% recycled trusses (UK Indemand 2014), 40% x 3.734 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg = 50.78 MJ/m2 - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.55kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) - Use thermal insulation with recycled contents = 40 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel (Green Star Technical Manual) is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled contents) (GBCA 2008) is: - Steel sheet from average recycled content = 5.6 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.135) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} x 90% = 90.21 MJ/m2 - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 x 90% = 55.44 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling If the materials come from local supplier Big Mate Projects (BIG Mate 2014), the saved distance will be 44/9 km Reuse recycled trusses 40% x 3.734 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 44.9 km x 4.5 MJ/tonne/km (Lawson 1886, p. 12) = 0.30 MJ/ m2 Transportation Decreased transportation by localizing suppliers Landscape Supplies, 488 Loganlea Rd, Slacks Creek QLD 4127 (Nuway 2014), considering the local supplier (BIG Mate 2014), the hypothetically decreased distance will be 32.3km 9.334 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 32.3 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 1.35 MJ/ m2 Construction Embodied Energy Life Cycle Basic Stages of Pre-Construction Construction building Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) to reduce Measurable Steel frame from average Use recycled trusses = 50.78 MJ/m2 energy to reduce recycled content 61.61 MJ/m2 Use Recycled insulation = 17.57 MJ/m2 401 MJ/ m2 in Building Steel Sheet from recycled content 100.24 MJ/m2 materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Roof Decreased transportation by reusing 0.30 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation by localizing1.35 MJ/m2 161.85 MJ/m2 70 MJ/m2 231.85 MJ/m2 234 401MJ/ m2 Appendix C Case Study Six – Multi Sports Building, USQ Table A.C.49: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel parallel chord trussed sheet roof. Case Study Six (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel sheet from 90% Recycled contents = 90.21 MJ/m2 Steel frame from 90% Recycled contents = 55.44 MJ/m2 Green Star, Total Roof 145.65 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 401 MJ/m2 401 MJ/ m2 145.65 MJ/m2 Table A.C.50: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in concrete slab floor, concrete upper floor; concrete block walls, steel parallel chord trussed roof. Case Study Six. Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable replaced and saved energy in Building materials and elements Measurable replaced and saved energy in Implementation Measurable replaced and saved energy in Transportation Total, building system Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emissions (Embodied Energy) reduction 217.49 MJ/m2 221.69 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 2307 MJ/m2 586 MJ/m2 147.18 MJ/ m2 128.84 MJ/m2 364.67 MJ/m2 936.53 MJ/m2 1301.20 MJ/m2 2307 MJ/m2 235 Appendix C Implemented Calculations (example) A.C.1.7 Implemented Calculations (example) Olympic Velodrome Building, London 2012. Case Study Five The following are calculations of the implemented embodied energy and generated carbon emissions for the main building elements (floor, wall and roof) of Case Study Five. These are based on the actual bioclimatic conditions achieved during the construction process, as presented in the following table. Table A.C.51: Bioclimatic conditions in the London Olympic Velodrome. Bioclimatic conditions Olympic Velodrome Building, London 2012 Reuse, recycle material resources; Localise suppliers and reduce transport Aggregates 80 per cent recycled aggregate was for concrete used in the concrete (Ingenia 2014) Steel and steel 100 per cent steel and steel mesh mesh was used from average recycled content (Steel Construction Information 2014) Reduce Reduced materials in structural material use design 50 per cent in design Reuse Reuse of leftover gas pipes for construction construction of the Olympic Source: London Olympics (2012) materials stadium’s ring beam (Karven 2012) Location: Olympic Park, London Reuse softwood from local salvage/re-use centre (JLL 2012) Floor construction system: Concrete slab Geopolymer, Geopolymer cement replaces floor, concrete upper floor fly ash and Portland cement cement substitute Wall construction system: Concrete block Transportation By reusing and recycling, walls, steel frame timber wall reduction by transportation was reduced. reuse, recycle, Transport when necessary was by Roof construction system: Steel frame, and sustainable rail or water (London Olympics fabric roof (commercial) transportation 2012) mode Principal architects: Jonathan Watts, George Material Construction material suppliers are Oates, Olympic Park London resources and outside London; thus, distance is Construction completed in 2012 suppliers more than 100km (Aggregate Industries 2014) The Velodrome is 50 per cent lighter than Beijing’s stadium (New Steel Construction 2010). It achieved 34 per cent use of recycled materials, well above its target of 20 per cent; and 63 per cent (by weight) of construction materials were transported to the Olympic Park by rail or water (London Olympics 2012). A quarter of all materials used in the building are recycled, including up to 76 per cent recycled aggregate (using stent, a by-product of the Cornish china clay industry), and 40 per cent recycled cement substitute (ground granulated blast furnace slag) in the concrete; 60 per cent recycled content in the interior block work (Ingenia 2014). 236 Appendix C Implemented Calculations (example) The velodrome has a high percentage of recycled content, and leftover gas pipes make up the Olympic Stadium’s ring beam, reducing the need for new steel to be produced (Institution of Civil Engineers 2012). The roof design for the stadium is a fabric ‘wrap’ made of hemp (London Olympics 2012). The cable-net design reduced the embodied carbon by 27 per cent compared to a steel arch option (UK Indemand 2014). Table A.C.52: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 200mm hollow core precast concrete slab floor (see Lawson 1996, p 125). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled aggregates for concrete Building materials and elements - Concrete from 76% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (297 + 84) x (381 kg/m2concrete – 51.73kg/m2 cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 76% = 20.74 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 5.148 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 71.55MJ/m2 Decreased and replaced energy Reduced Cement Implementation Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacement with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 381 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 97% = 51.73 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 51.73 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 289.74 MJ/ m2 Reduced Embodied Energy Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling Transport of material, one stop supplier, Great sustainability rating for products and transport, Bespoke products. If the materials come from London, the saved distance will be over 100 km (Aggregate Industries 2014) (297 + 5.148 + 84) 386.14 kg/m2x 76 % /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 119.57 MJ/ m2 Improved and Replaced Renewable energy in transportation 63% Transported by rail or water 386.148 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km {4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} = 157.3 MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) x %63 = 99.1 MJ/M2 Transportation Energy consumption Mode Energy Consumption (MJtonne/km) UK Road 4.50 Rail 0.60 Ship 0.25 Source: Lawson (1996, p.12) Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Basic Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce in 76% Recycled aggregate for 100% Steel from average recycled concrete 20.74 MJ/m2 content 71.55MJ/m2 908 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements Transportation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Decreased transportation by reuse 119.57 MJ/ m2 Transportation Total Floor Geopolymer 100% Cement Replacement 289.74 MJ/m2 Replaced Energy in transportation 99.1 MJ/M2 140.31 MJ/m2 460.39 MJ/m2 600.70 MJ/m2 908MJ/ m2 237 Appendix C Implemented Calculations (example) Table A.C.53: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a 125-mm elevated concrete upper floor (Lawson 1996, P. 124). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Building materials and elements - Concrete from 76% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (300 Kg concrete – 40.74 kg cement) (Lawson 1996,125, Legend 3) x 76% =16.34 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 7.15 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 99.38 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Implementation Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacement with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 300kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 97% = 40.74 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 40.74 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 228.14 MJ/ m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reuse and recycling If materials come from outside London, the distance would be over 100 km, but the waste materials have been reused, therefore the saved energy is at least: Aggregate300 kg/m2 x76% /1000T/m2x100 km x {(4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJ/ton/km (Lawson 1996, p.12) = 92.89MJ/ m2 Improved and Replaced Renewable energy in transportation 63% Transported by rail or water 307.153 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km {4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) x %63 = 78.85 MJ/m2 Reduced Transportation Energy consumption by type of transportation Mode Energy Consumption (MJtonne/km) UK Road 4.50 Rail 0.60 Ship 0.25 Source: Lawson (1996, p. 12) Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emissions (Embodied Energy) to Reduce Measurable energy to reduce 30% Recycled aggregate for concrete Steel mesh from average in Building materials and recycled content 16.34 MJ/m2 750MJ/m2 elements 99.38MJ/m2 Transportation Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total Floor 238 Decreased transportation by reusing 92.89 MJ/ m2 Use of 40% Fly ash mix = 228.14 MJ/m2 Replaced Energy in transportation 78.85 MJ/m2 109.23 MJ/m2 406.37 MJ/m2 515.60 MJ/m2 750MJ/m2 Appendix C Implemented Calculations (example) Table AC.54: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a cored concrete block wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled materials as aggregate for concrete block Building materials and elements - Concrete from100% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (275 Kg concrete – 24.47 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 129) = 20.79 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete block or 100% replacement with recycled cement substitute results 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Portland Cement= 89Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) /1000 x 275 =24.47 Kg/m2 Reduced Portland cement 24.47 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 137.03 MJ/ m2 Implementation Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling Materials are from London, thus saved distance will be over 100 km Reuse aggregate (275 concrete – 24.47 cement) kg.m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 – {(0.6 +0.25) / 2} MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 102.09 MJ/ m2 Improved and Replaced Renewable energy in transportation Transportation 63% Transported by rail or water 299.57 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km {4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) x 63% = 76.90 MJ/m2 Reduced Transportation Energy consumption by type of transportation Mode Energy Consumption (MJtonne/km) UK Road 4.50 Rail 0.60 Ship 0.25 Source: Lawson (1996, p.12) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Use 100% recycled aggregates 20.79 MJ/ m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Standard 511MJ/ m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement 137.03 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce Decreased transportation by reusing in Transportation 102.09 MJ/m2 Replaced Energy in transportation 76.90 MJ/m2 122.88 MJ/ m2 Total Walls Embodied Energy 213.93 MJ/ m2 2 336.81 MJ/ m 511MJ/ m2 239 Appendix C Implemented Calculations (example) Table A.C.55: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed timber weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 125). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel from average recycled content Building materials and elements - Steel frame from average recycled content = 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13 - 20.10 MJ/Kg GreenSpec = 3.342 KJ/Kg X 13.9 Kg/ m2 = 46.45 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Reuse softwood + softwood plates + softwood weatherboard = 74 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125; JLL 2012) Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling Construction materials from London, thus saved distance will be over 100 km 22kg.m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 9.89 MJ/ m2 Improved and Replaced Renewable energy in transportation 63% Transported by rail or water 14.32 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km {4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) x 63% = 3.67 MJ/m2 Reduced Transportation Energy consumption by type of transportation Mode Energy Consumption (MJtonne/km) UK Road 4.50 Rail 0.60 Ship 0.25 Source: Lawson (Lawson 1996, p. 12) Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce in Steel frame from recycled Use recycled softwood + content 46.45 MJ/m2 weatherboard 74 MJ/m2 Building materials and 238 MJ/ m2 elements Transportation Measurable energy to reduce in Decreased transportation by reuse= 9.89 MJ/ m2 Transportation Total Walls 240 Replaced Energy in transportation 3.67 MJ/m2 56.34 MJ/m2 77.67 MJ/m2 134.01 MJ/m2 238 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Implemented Calculations (example) Table A.C.56: Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a steel framed, fabric roof (hemp wrap) (Lawson 1996, p. 133). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel from average recycled content - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996) – 20.50 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 = 65.34 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements Building materials and elements - Use recycled frame and pipes - Velodrome has a high percentage of recycled content and leftover gas pipes make up the Olympic Stadium’s ring beam (Karven 2012) The structure involved the use of 28% recycled materials (Ingenia 2014). - Use 40% recycled trusses (UK Indemand 2014) 40% x 3.734 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 50.78 MJ/m2 Reduce Materials use in design A materially efficient double-curved cable net design reduced the embodied carbon by 27% compared to a steel arch option (UK Indemand 2014). - 50% reduce in design x 3.734 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 63.47 MJ/m2 Decreased transportation of waste by reusing and recycling Materials from London, thus saved distance will be over 100 km 3.734 kg/m2 steel frame x 50% kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km x 4.5 MJtonne/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) = 0.84 MJ/ m2 Improved and Replaced Renewable energy in transportation 63% Transported by rail or water 14.32 kg/m2 /1000 T/m2 x 100 km {4.5 – (0.6 +0.25) /2} MJton/km (Lawson 1996, p. 12) x 63% = 2.39 MJ/m2 Reduced Transportation Energy consumption by type of transportation Mode Energy Consumption (MJtonne/km) UK Road 4.50 Rail 0.60 Ship 0.25 Source: Lawson (1996, p. 12) Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce 100% Steel frame from average recycled Use recycled elements = in Building materials and contents 65.34 MJ/m2 50.78 MJ/m2 282MJ/m2 50% reduce steel in elements design 63.47 MJ/m2 Transportation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Decreased transportation by reuse 0.84 MJ/ m2 Total Roof 66.18MJ/m2 Decreased energy by replacing 2.39 MJ/m2 116.64 MJ/m2 182.82 MJ/m2 282MJ/ m2 Table A.C.57: Case Study 5. Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) in a concrete slab floor, concrete upper floor; concrete block walls, steel framed, fabric roof construction system Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Measurable energy to reduce in Transportation Total, building system Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emissions (Embodied Energy) to Reduce 169.66 MJ/m2 359.18 MJ/m2 - 654.91 MJ/m2 325.28 MJ/m2 494.94 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 2689 MJ/m2 260.91 MJ/m2 1275 MJ/m2 2689 MJ/m2 241 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems A.C.2 RESEARCH MODEL APPLIED TO GENERAL AUSTRALIAN FLOOR, WALL AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS A.C.2.1 Potential carbon emission reductions in general Australian floor construction systems a. Elevated Timber Floor (lowest level) Table A.C.58: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in an elevated timber floor (lowest level) (see Lawson 1996, p. 124), Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reuse the recycled aggregate for concrete - Concrete from 80 % Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (26.4 kg concrete – 3.69 cement) Kg x 80% (Lawson, 1996, p.125) =1.52 MJ/m2 Reuse the recycled aggregate for brick, 67% (Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014) 36 kg/m2 (Lawson, 1996, p.124, L 1) x 67% x 0.083 MJ/kg = 2 MJ/ m2 Reuse materials and elements - Use recycled bricks 60% x 90 = 54MJ/m2 -Timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber, use recycled hardwood joist, flooring, 54 MJ/m2 x (Lawson 1996, p.124), 60% = 32.4 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 Green Star Technical Manual is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (26.4 concrete – 3.69 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p.125) x 20% = 0 .38 MJ/m2 Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual 95% of all timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber 60% Recycled hardwood joints use recycled hardwood joist, flooring ,54 MJ/m2 x (Lawson 1996, p.124), 60% = 32.4 MJ/m2 Decrease and replace energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacement with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011; Kotrayothar 2012) 26.4 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 3.69 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 3.69 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 20.66 MJ/ m2 Implementation Potential 40 per cent energy savings in brick manufacturing using 67% recycled container glass brick grog (Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014). Reduced energy 90 MJ/m2 x 40% = 36 MJ/m2 Green Star Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 60% replacement with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 26.4 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = 2.29 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 2.29 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson1996, p.13) = 12.82 MJ/ m2 Life cycle stages of Construction Embodied Energy building Standard Pre-Construction Construction Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Total Floor 242 Potential Embodied Energy to Replace and Save Concrete from recycled aggregate 1.52 Use recycled brick 54MJ/m2 Use recycled Hardwood 32.4 MJ/m2 67% Use recycled aggregate for brick MJ/m2 2KJ/m2 40% saving energy in production 36 MJ/m2 293MJ/m2 Geopolymer concrete 20.66 MJ/ m2 39.52 MJ/m2 107.06 MJ/m2 146.58 MJ/m2 293MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Floor l construction systems Table A.C.59: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in an elevated timber floor (lowest level) (Lawson 1996, p. 124). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Concrete from recycled Use recycled Hardwood 32.4 MJ/m2 aggregate 0.38 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 293 MJ/m2 Geopolymer concrete 12.82 MJ/ m2 Implementation Green Star, Total Floor 0.38 MJ/ m2 45.60 MJ/m2 45.22 MJ/m2 293 MJ/ m2 b. Elevated Timber Floor (upper level) Table A.C.60: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber floor upper floor (Lawson 1996, p. 124). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements 60% Recycled softwood joints (Design Coalition 2013) @ (600 c-c) 300x 500 mm + Timber flooring @ 18 mm particleboard 50 MJ/m2 + 91 MJ/m2= 60% x 141 MJ/m2 P. 124, L.1 = 84.6 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 60% Recycled softwood joints (Design Coalition 2013) @ (600 c-c) 300x 500 mm + Timber flooring @ 18 mm particleboard 50 MJ/m2 + 91 MJ/m2= %60 x 141 MJ/m2 P. 124 = 84.6 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Total Floor Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in carbon emissions 60% Recycled timber floor 84.6 MJ/m2 84.60 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 147MJ/m2 147MJ/ m2 84.60 MJ/m2 Table A.C.61: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber floor upper floor (Lawson 1996, p. 124) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Floor Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 60% Recycled timber floor 84.6 MJ/m2 84.6 MJ/m2 84.60 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 147 MJ/m2 147 MJ/ m2 243 Appendix C Australian general Floor construction systems c. 110 mm Concrete Slab on ground Table A.C.62: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 110-mm concrete slab on ground floor (Lawson 1996, p. 124). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Building materials and elements - Concrete from 80% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (290.4 concrete –39.43 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p.125) x 80% =16.67 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 3.882 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 53.96MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 Green Star Technical Manual is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (290.4 concrete –39.43 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p.125) x 20% = 4.16 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Green Star Technical Manual, steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: 3.882 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 53.95 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer Concrete or 100% replacing with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 290.4 kg/m2 (Lawson1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 39.43 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 39.43 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 220.83 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 290.4 kg/m2 (Lawson1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = 24.38 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 24.38 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 60% = 81.91 MJ/ m2 Life cycle stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Concrete from 80% recycled Steel mesh, beams from average recycled aggregate = 16.67 MJ/m2 content = 53.96 MJ/m Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Embodied Energy Basic 645MJ/m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement = 220.83 MJ/ m2 16.67 MJ/m2 Total Floor 274.79 MJ/m2 2 291.46 MJ/m 645MJ/ m2 Table A.C.63: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 110-mm concrete slab on ground floor (Lawson 1996, p. 124) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for 90%Steel mesh from average recycled concrete = 4.16 MJ/m2 content 53.95MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Floor 244 Embodied Energy Basic 645 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 136.59 MJ/m2 4.16 MJ/m2 190.54 MJ/m2 194.70 MJ/m2 645MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Floor l construction systems d. 125mm Elevated Concrete Slab (temporary framework) Table A.C.64: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 125-mm elevated concrete upper floor (Lawson 1996, p. 124-6) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled aggregate for concrete - Concrete from 80% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008: PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (300 Kg concrete – 40.74 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 80% =17.20 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 7.15 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 99.38 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 Green Star Technical manual is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg saved embodied energy = 0.083 MJ/Kg x (300 Kg concrete – 40.74 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, p.125) x 20% = 4.30 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Green Star Technical Manual, Steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: 7.15 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 89.44 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete or 100% replacing with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 300kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996. p. 41) = 40.74 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete Implementation 40.74 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 228.14 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 300kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = 25.2 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 25.2 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 141.12 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Standard Measurable energy to reduce 80% Recycled aggregate for concrete Steel mesh from average in Building materials and 17.20 MJ/m2 recycled content 750MJ/m2 elements 99.38MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Total Floor Use of 40% Fly ash mix = 228.14 MJ/m2 17.20 MJ/m2 327.52 MJ/m2 2 344.72 MJ/m 750MJ/m2 Table A.C.65: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 125-mm elevated concrete upper floor (Lawson 1996, p. 124-6). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for 90%Steel mesh from average recycled concrete = 4.30 MJ/m2 content 89.44 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Floor Embodied Energy Basic 750 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 141.12 MJ/m2 4.30 MJ/m2 230.56 MJ/m2 234.76 MJ/m2 750 MJ/ m2 245 Appendix C Australian general Floor construction systems e. 110mm elevated concrete slab (permanent frame work) Table A.C.66: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 110-mm concrete slab (permanent framework) (Lawson 1996, p. 125) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Building materials and elements - Concrete from 80 % Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (264 concrete –36.96 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p.125) x 80% =15.07 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 2.5 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 34.75MJ/m2 Steel formwork from average recycled content = 3.66 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 65.51MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 Green Star Technical manual is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (264 concrete –36.96 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p.125) x 20% = 3.76 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Green Star Technical Manual, Steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: Steel mesh, 2.5 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 31.27 MJ/m2 Steel formwork 3.66 Kg x 90% {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 58.96 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer Concrete or 100% replacing with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 264 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 36.96 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 36.96 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 206.97 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 264 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = 22.17 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 22.17 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 124.15 MJ/ m2 Life cycle stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Concrete from 80% recycled Steel mesh, beams from average recycled aggregate = 15.07 MJ/m2 content = 34.75MJ/m2 Steel formwork from average recycled content = 65.51 MJ/m Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Embodied Energy Basic 665MJ/m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement = 206.97 MJ/ m2 15.07 MJ/m2 Total Floor 277.23 MJ/m2 292.3 MJ/m 2 665MJ/ m2 Table A.C.66-1: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 110-mm concrete slab (permanent framework) (Lawson 1996, p. 124) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for 90%Steel mesh from average recycled concrete = 3.76 MJ/m2 content 31.27MJ/m2 Steel formwork from average recycled content = 58.96 MJ/m Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Floor 246 Embodied Energy Basic 665 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacement 124.15 MJ/m2 3.76 MJ/m2 214.38 MJ/m2 218.14 MJ/m2 665MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Floor l construction systems f. 200mm Precast Concrete Tee Beam/Infill flooring Table A.C.67: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm precast concrete tee beam/infill floor (Lawson 1996, p. 125). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Building materials and elements - Concrete from 80% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (182.88 concrete – 25.60 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 80% =10.44 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 4.216 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 58.51 MJ/m2 Steel formwork from average recycled content = 3.66 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 65.51MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 Green Star Technical Manual, considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (182.88 concrete – 25.60 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 20% = 2.61 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Green Star Technical Manual, Steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: Steel mesh, 4.216 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 52.74 MJ/m2 Steel formwork 3.66 Kg x 90% {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 58.96 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer Concrete or 100% replacing with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 182.88 kg/m2 (Lawson p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 24.83 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 24.83 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 139.04 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 182.88 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = 15.36 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 15.36 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 86.01 MJ/ m2 Life cycle stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Concrete from 80% recycled aggregate Steel mesh, beams from average recycled = 10.44 MJ/m2 content = 58.51MJ/m2 Steel formwork from average recycled content = 65.51 MJ/m Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Embodied Energy Basic 665MJ/m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement = 139.04 MJ/ m2 10.44 MJ/m2 Total Floor 263.06 MJ/m2 273.50 MJ/m2 665MJ/ m2 Table A.C.68: Green Star Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm precast concrete tee beam/infill floor (Lawson 1996, p. 124). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction %20 Recycled aggregate for concrete 90%Steel mesh from average recycled content = 2.61 MJ/m2 52.74MJ/m2 Steel formwork from average recycled content = 58.96 MJ/m Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Floor Embodied Energy Basic 665 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 124.15 MJ/m2 2.61 MJ/m2 235.85 MJ/m2 238.46 MJ/m2 665MJ/ m2 247 Appendix C Australian general Floor construction systems g. 200mm Hollow Core Precast Concrete flooring Table A.C.69: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm hollow core precast concrete slab floor (Lawson 1996, p. 125). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reused the recycled aggregates for concrete - Concrete from 80% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083MJ/Kg x (381 kg/m2concrete – 51.73kg/m2 cement) (Lawson, 1996, p.125) x 80% = 21.84 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 5.148 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 71.55 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 Green Star Technical Manual, considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (381 kg/m2concrete – 51.73kg/m2 cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 20% = 5.46 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Green Star Technical Manual, Steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: 5.148 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 64.39 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy Replaced cement Geopolymer Concrete or 100% replacing with recycled cement substitute (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 381kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 51.73 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete Implementation 51.73 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 289.68 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 381kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = 32 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 1996, 32 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) =179.2 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to reduce in 30 % Concrete from recycled 100%Steel mesh, beams from average aggregate = 21.84 MJ/m2 recycled content = 71.55 MJ/m2 908 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Total Floor Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement = 289.68 MJ/ m2 21.84 MJ/m2 361.23 MJ/m2 383.07 MJ/m2 908MJ/ m2 Table A.C.70: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm hollow core precast concrete slab floor (Lawson 1996, p. 125) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for 90%Steel mesh from average recycled concrete =5.46 MJ/m2 content 64.39 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Floor 248 Embodied Energy Basic 908 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 179.2 MJ/m2 5.46 MJ/m2 243.59 MJ/m2 249.05 MJ/m2 908 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems A.C.2.2 Potential carbon emission reduction in general Australian wall construction systems a. Timber Framed, Single Skin Timber Wall Table A.C.71: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed, single skin timber wall (Lawson 1996, p. 125). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled materials Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer 60% FSC timber + Reuse the recycled timber 40% (7.15+2.75+1.1) X 3.4 = 24.93 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125; JLL 2012) Building materials and elements Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse recycled materials Areas that Embodied Energy can be reduced Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Total Walls Use recycled softwood studs, 95% Reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm =, 95% x 11 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p.125, L. 7) 3.4 = 23.68 MJ/m2 Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Embodied Energy to Replace and Save softwood studs + softwood plates 24.93 MJ/m2 151MJ/ m2 Use Recycle thermal insulation 2 16.43 MJ/m 41.36 MJ/m2 41.36 MJ/m2 151MJ/ m2 Table A.C.72: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber frame, single skin timber wall (Lawson 1996, p. 125). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 249 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 95% softwood studs + softwood plates 23.68MJ/m2 Use Recycle thermal insulation 16.43 MJ/m2 36.43 MJ/m2 40.11 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 151 MJ/m2 151 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems b. Timber Frame, Timber Weatherboard Wall Table A.C.73: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 125-127). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel (Aluminium) from average recycled content Use Aluminium from recycled content 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer 60% FSC timber + Reuse the recycled timber 40% (7.15+2.75+1.1+11) x 3.4 Mj/kg = 74.80 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125; JLL 2012) Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber Reuse softwood + softwood plates + softwood weatherboard = 22 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 3.4 Mj/kg x 95% = 71.06 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of Construction Embodied Energy building Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce Aluminium from Use recycled softwood + weatherboard 188 MJ/ m2 in Building materials and recycled contents = 74.80 MJ/m2 Recycled thermal insulation16.43 MJ/m2 elements 15.78 MJ/m2 Total Walls 91.23 MJ/m2 15.78 MJ/m2 107.01 MJ/m2 188MJ/ m2 Table A.C.74: Green Star, Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 250 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Use recycled softwood + weatherboard 71.06 MJ/m2 71.06 MJ/m2 71.06 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 188 MJ/ m2 188 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems c. Timber Frame, Reconstituted Timber Weatherboard Wall Table A.C.75: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed reconstituted timber weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 126). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel (Aluminium) from average recycled content Use Aluminium from recycled content 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre, FSC) Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer 60% FSC timber + Reuse the recycled timber 40% (7.15+2.75+1.1) x 3.4 Mj/kg = 37.4 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125; JLL 2012) 11 kg/m2 x 24.2 Mj/kg = 266.20 MJ/m2 Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Reuse materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer, FSC timber + Reuse the recycled timber 95%(7.15+2.75+1.1) x 3.4 Mj/kg = 35.53 MJ/m2 11 kg/m2 x 24.2 Mj/kg x 95% = 252.89 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of Construction Embodied Energy building Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce Aluminium from recycled Use recycled softwood + in Building materials and contents = 15.78 MJ/m2 weatherboard 37.4 MJ/m2 377 MJ/ m2 Weatherboard 266.20 MJ/m2 elements 2 Thermal insulation = 16.43 MJ/m Total Walls 15.78 MJ/m2 320.03 MJ/m2 335.81 MJ/m2 377MJ/ m2 Table A.C.76: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber frame, reconstituted timber weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 126) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Use recycled softwood + weatherboard 35.53 MJ/m2 Weatherboard 252.20 MJ/m2 287.73 MJ/m2 287.73 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 377 MJ/ m2 377 MJ/ m2 251 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems d. Timber Frame, Fiber Cement Weatherboard Wall Table A.C.77: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed fibre cement weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 126). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel (Aluminium) from average recycled content Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre, FSC) Reuse the recycled timber and post-consumer 60% FSC timber + Reuse the recycled timber 40% (7.15+2.75+1.1) x 3.4 Mj/kg = 37.4 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125; JLL 2012) 11 kg/m2 x 24.2 Mj/kg = 266.20 MJ/m2 Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Use FC weatherboard from recycled 50%aggregate (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (2.5 concrete – 0.35 cement) Kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 134) = 0.083 x 2.15 kg/m2 x 50% (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) = 0.018 MJ/m2 Geopolymer 50% replacing Portland cement with geopolymer (McLellan et al. 2011; Nath and Sarker 2014) 2.5 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 50% = 0.175 kg replaced cement/ m2 0.175 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 0.98 MJ/ m2 Green Star Reuse materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer, FSC timber + Reuse the recycled timber 95% (7.15+2.75+1.1) x 3.4 Mj/kg = 35.53 MJ/m2 11 kg/m2 x 24.2 Mj/kg x 95% = 252.89 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of Construction Embodied Energy building Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce Aluminium from recycled Use recycled softwood + in Building materials and contents = 15.78 MJ/m2 weatherboard 37.4 MJ/m2 169 MJ/ m2 FC Weatherboard 0.018 MJ/m2 elements Geopolymer 0.98 MJ/ m2 Thermal insulation = 16.43 MJ/m2 Total Walls 58.82 MJ/m2 15.78 MJ/m2 70.60 MJ/m2 169 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.78: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed fibre cement weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 126) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 252 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Use recycled softwood + weatherboard 35.53 MJ/m2 35.53 MJ/m2 35.53 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 169 MJ/ m2 169 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems e. Timber Frame, Steel Clad Wall Table A.C.79: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed steel clad wall (Lawson 1996, p. 126) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel (Aluminium) from average recycled content Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 - Steel cladding from average recycled content = 4.9 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 87.71MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer 60% FSC timber + Reuse the recycled timber 40% (7.15+2.75+1.1) x 3.4 Mj/kg = 37.40 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125; JLL 2012) Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Reuse materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber Reuse softwood + softwood plates + softwood weatherboard = 11 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 3.4 Mj/kg x 95% = 35.53 MJ/m2 Material-6 Green Star Technical Manual, Steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is - Steel cladding from average recycled content = 4.9 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) 20.10 MJ/Kg 90% = 78.93 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of Construction Embodied Energy building Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce Aluminium from recycled Use recycled softwood + in Building materials and contents = 15.78 MJ/m2 weatherboard 37.40 MJ/m2 336 MJ/ m2 Steel cladding from recycled Recycled thermal insulation16.43 elements content 87.71MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Total Walls 53.83 MJ/m2 103.49 MJ/m2 157.32 MJ/m2 336MJ/ m2 Table A.C.80: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed steel clad wall (Lawson 1996, p. 126) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel cladding from recycled Use recycled softwood + weatherboard content 78.93 MJ/m2 35.53 MJ/m2 78.93 MJ/m2 35.53 MJ/m2 114.46 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 336 MJ/ m2 336 MJ/ m2 253 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems f. Steel Frame, Steel Clad Wall Table A.C.81: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel clad wall (Lawson 1996, p. 127) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel from average recycled content - Steel frame from average recycled content = 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 3.342 KJ/Kg X 13.9 Kg/ m2 = 46.45 MJ/m2 - Steel cladding from average recycled content = 4.9 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 87.71MJ/m2 Aluminium from average recycled content Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Reuse 40% recycled steel 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 40% = 45.44 MJ/m2 Reuse materials in design Reduce 20% steel in design 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 22.72 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber Material-6 Green Star Technical Manual, Steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is - Steel frame from average recycled content = 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 3.342 KJ/Kg X 13.9 Kg/ m2 x 90% = 41.80 MJ/m2 - Steel cladding from average recycled content = 4.9 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) 20.10 MJ/Kg 90% = 78.93 MJ/m2 Reduce 20% steel in design 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 11996, p. 13) x 20% = 22.72 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of Construction Embodied Energy building Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce Aluminium from recycled Recycled thermal insulation 16.43 in Building materials and contents = 15.78 MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Reuse steel = 45.44 MJ/m2 Steel frame from recycled elements 425 MJ/ m2 content 46.45 MJ/m2 Reduce in design 22.72 MJ/m2 Steel cladding from recycled content 87.71MJ/m2 Total Walls 84.59 MJ/m2 149.94 MJ/m2 234.53 MJ/m2 425 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.82: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel clad wall (Lawson 1996, p. 127) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 254 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel frame from recycled Reduce in design 22.72 MJ/m2 content 41.80 MJ/m2 Steel cladding from recycled content 78.93 MJ/m2 120.73 MJ/m2 22.72 MJ/m2 143.45 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 425 MJ/ m2 425 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems g. Timber Frame, Aluminium Weatherboard Wall Table A.C.83: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed aluminium weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 126) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel (Aluminium) from average recycled content Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 Use Aluminium from recycled contents 1.485 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 240.42 MJ/m2 Reuse materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Reuse recycled timber and post-consumer 60% FSC timber + Reuse the recycled timber 40% (7.15+2.75+1.1) x 3.4 Mj/kg = 37.40 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125; JLL 2012) Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber Reuse softwood + softwood plates + softwood weatherboard = 11 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 3.4 Mj/kg x 95% = 35.53 MJ/m2 Material-6 Green Star Technical Manual, Steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) x 90% = 14.20 MJ/m2 Use Aluminium from recycled contents 1.485 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) x 90% = 216.378 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of Construction Embodied Energy building Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce Aluminium from recycled Use recycled softwood 37.40 in Building materials and contents = 15.78 MJ/m2 MJ/m2 403 MJ/ m2 Recycled thermal insulation16.43 Aluminium from recycled elements 2 2 contents = 240.42 MJ/m MJ/m Total Walls 53.83 MJ/m2 256.20 MJ/m2 310.03 MJ/m2 403MJ/ m2 Table A.C.84: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed aluminium weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 126). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Aluminium from recycled Use recycled softwood + weatherboard contents = 14.20 MJ/m2 35.53 MJ/m2 Aluminium from recycled contents = 216.37 MJ/m2 230.57 MJ/m2 35.53 MJ/m2 266.10 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 403 MJ/ m2 403 MJ/ m2 255 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems h. Timber Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall Table A.C.85: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed clay brick veneer wall (Lawson 1996, p. 127). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused the recycled aggregates Reuse recycled aggregate for brick, 67% (Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014), 147 kg/m2 (Lawson, p.127) x 67% x 0.083 MJ/kg = 8.17 MJ/ m2 Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements Use recycled softwood stud, 60% Reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm (Lawson 1996, p.127) 60% x 33 MJ/m2= 19.8 MJ/m2 - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Reuse materials and elements Use recycled softwood stud, 60% Reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm = 60% x 33 MJ/m2= 19.8 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy Decrease energy US-made fly ash brick gains strength and durability from the chemical reaction of fly ash with Implementation water. However, 85 per cent less energy is used in production than in fired clay brick, (Structure Magazine 2015); potential 40 per cent energy savings in brick manufacturing using 67% recycled container glass brick grog (Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014). Reduced energy 368 MJ/m2 x 40% = 147.2 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Reduction in Carbon Emissions Measurable energy to reduce 76% Use recycled 60% softwood stud + softwood plates 19.8 in Building materials and aggregate for brick MJ/m2 Use Recycle thermal insulation 16.43 MJ/m2 elements 8.17 KJ/m2 Implementation Total Walls Embodied Energy Standard 561MJ/ m2 40% saving energy in production 147.2 MJ/m2 155.37 KJ/m2 36.23 MJ/m2 191.60 MJ/m2 561MJ/ m2 Table A.C.86: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed clay brick veneer wall (Lawson 1996, p. 127). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 256 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 60% softwood stud + softwood plates 19.80 MJ/m2 19.80MJ/m2 2 19.80 MJ/m Embodied Energy Basic 561 MJ/m2 561 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems i. Steel Frame, Clay Brick Veneer Wall Table A.C.87: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed clay brick veneer wall (Lawson 1996, p. 128). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled aggregates - Steel frame from average recycled content = 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 3.342 KJ/Kg X 13.9 Kg/ m2 = 46.45 MJ/m2 - Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 - Reuse recycled aggregate for brick, 67% (Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014) 147 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p.127) x 67% x 0.083 MJ/kg = 8.17 MJ/ m2 Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Reuse 40% recycled steel 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 40% = 45.44 MJ/m2 Reduced materials in design Reduce 20% steel in design 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 22.72 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse materials and elements - Steel frame from average recycled content = 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 3.342 KJ/Kg X 13.9 Kg/ m2 x 90% = 41.80 MJ/m2 - Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) x 90% = 15.78 MJ/m2 Reduced materials in design Reduce 20% steel in design 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 22.72 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Total Walls Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in carbon emissions Steel from recycled content Use Recycle thermal insulation 46.45 MJ/m2 16.43 MJ/m2 Reuse steel = 45.44 MJ/m2 Aluminium from recycled content 15.78 MJ/m2 Reduce in design 22.72 MJ/m2 76% Use recycled aggregate for brick 8.17 KJ/m2 70.40 KJ/m2 84.59 MJ/m2 154.99 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Standard 650MJ/ m2 650MJ/ m2 Table A.C.88: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed clay brick veneer wall (Lawson 1996, p. 128) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel from recycled content Reduce in design 22.72 MJ/m2 41.80 MJ/m2 Aluminium from recycled content 14.20 MJ/m2 56 MJ/m2 22.72 MJ/m2 78.72 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 650 MJ/m2 650 MJ/ m2 257 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems j. Timber Frame, Concrete Block Veneer Wall Table A.C.89: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed concrete block veneer wall (Lawson 1996, p. 128). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled aggregates Reuse recycled aggregate for brick, 100% (Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014), 137.5 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p.127) x 0.083 MJ/kg = 11.41 MJ/ m2 Building materials and elements - Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements Use recycled softwood stud, 60% Reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm, (Lawson 1996, p.127) 60% x 33 MJ/m2= 19.8 MJ/m2 - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.585kg/m2 = 16.43 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Reuse materials and elements Use recycled softwood stud, 60% Reuse softwood stud@100x50mm+ softwood plates@100x50 mm = 60% x 33 MJ/m2= 19.8 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Decrease energy Implementation Geopolymer concrete brick or 100% replacing with recycled results 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Cement = 89Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) / 1000 x 137.5 =12.23 Kg/m2 Reduced cement 12.23 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 68.53 MJ/ m2 Green Star - Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) x 90% = 15.78 MJ/m2 Reduced Cement = 89Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) / 1000 x 137.5 =12.23 Kg/m2 Reduced cement 12.23 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 2996, p.13) x 60% = 41.11 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to reduce 76% Use recycled aggregate 60% softwood stud + softwood plates in Building materials and for brick 11.41 KJ/m2 19.8 MJ/m2 61MJ/ m2 Aluminium from recycled Use Recycle thermal insulation 16.43 elements 2 2 content 15.78 MJ/m MJ/m Implementation Total Walls Replacing Geopolymer 68.53 MJ/ m2 95.72 KJ/m2 36.23 MJ/m2 2 131.95 MJ/m 361MJ/ m2 Table A.C.90: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed concrete block veneer wall (Lawson 1996, p. 127). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 258 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Replacing Geopolymer 41.11 MJ/ m2 60% softwood stud + softwood Aluminium from recycled content plates 19.80 MJ/m2 15.78 MJ/m2 19.80MJ/m2 56.89 MJ/m2 76.69 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 361 MJ/m2 361 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems k. Steel Frame, Concrete Block Veneer Wall Table A.C.91: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed concrete block veneer wall (Lawson 1996, p. 128). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled aggregates Reuse recycled aggregate for brick, 100% (Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014) 137.5 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p.127) x 0.083 MJ/kg = 11.41 MJ/ m2 - Steel frame from average recycled content = 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 3.342 KJ/Kg x 13.9 Kg/ m2 = 46.45 MJ/m2 - Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.65kg/m2 = 18.25 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Reuse 40% recycled steel 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 40% = 45.44 MJ/m2 Building materials and Reduced materials in design elements Reduce 20% steel in design 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 22.72 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse materials and elements - Steel frame from average recycled content = 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 3.342 KJ/Kg X 13.9 Kg/ m2 x 90% = 41.80 MJ/m2 - Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) x 90% = 15.78 MJ/m2 Reused materials in design Reduce 20% steel in design 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson1996, p. 13) x 20% = 22.72 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Decrease energy Implementation Geopolymer concrete brick or 100% replacing with recycled results 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Cement = 89Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) / 1000 x 137.5 =12.23 Kg/m2 Reduced cement 12.23 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 68.53 MJ/ m2 Green Star Reduced Cement =89Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) / 1000 x 137.5 =12.23 Kg/m2 Reduced cement 12.23 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 60% = 41.11 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to reduce 76% Use recycled aggregate Use Recycle thermal insulation 18.25 in Building materials and for brick 11.41 KJ/m2 MJ/m2 Reuse recycled steel 45.44 MJ/m2 Steel from recycled elements 453MJ/ m2 Reduce steel use in design 22.72 MJ/m2 content46.45 MJ/m2 Aluminium from recycled content 15.78 MJ/m2 Implementation Total Walls Replacing Geopolymer 68.53 MJ/ m2 142.17 KJ/m2 86.41 MJ/m2 228.58 MJ/m2 453MJ/ m2 Table A.C.92: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed concrete block veneer wall (Lawson 1996, p. 127). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Replacing Geopolymer 41.11 MJ/ Steel from recycled content 41.80 m2 MJ/m2 Aluminium from recycled content Reduce steel use in design 22.72 14.20 MJ/m2 MJ/m2 64.52 MJ/m2 56.89 MJ/m2 121.41 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 453 MJ/m2 453 MJ/ m2 259 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems l. Steel Frame, timber weatherboard Wall Table A.C.93: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed timber weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 125) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel from average recycled content - Steel frame from average recycled content = 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 3.342 KJ/Kg X 13.9 Kg/ m2 = 46.45 MJ/m2 - Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 Reuse materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Reuse softwood + softwood plates + softwood weatherboard = 74 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 125; JLL 2012) - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.65kg/m2 = 18.25 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Reuse 40% recycled steel 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 40% = 45.44 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements Reuse materials in design Reduce 20% steel in design 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 22.72 MJ/m2 Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel, Green Star Technical Manual, steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled contents) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x 3.342 kg/ m2 x 90% = 41.80 MJ/m2 Reuse materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber Reuse softwood + softwood plates + softwood weatherboard = 74 MJ/m2 (Lawson p. 125) x 95% = 70.3 MJ/m2 Reduce 20% steel in design 3.342 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 22.72 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of Construction Embodied Energy building Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to reduce Steel frame from recycled Use recycled softwood + weatherboard in Building materials and content 46.45 MJ/m2 74 MJ/m2 Aluminium from recycled Use Recycle thermal insulation 18.25 elements 238 MJ/ m2 content 15.78 MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Reuse recycled steel 45.44 MJ/m2 Reduce steel use in design 22.72 MJ/m2 Total Walls 62.23 MJ/m2 160.41 MJ/m2 222.64 MJ/m2 238 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.94: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed timber weatherboard wall (Lawson 1996, p. 125). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 260 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel frame from 90% Recycled Use recycled softwood + weatherboard contents = 41.80 MJ/m2 70.30 MJ/m2 Reduce steel use in design 22.72 MJ/m2 41.80 MJ/m2 93.02 MJ/m2 2 134.82 MJ/m Embodied Energy Basic 151MJ/ m2 151MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems m. Cavity Clay Brick Wall Table A.C.95: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a cavity clay brick wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled aggregates Reuse recycled aggregate for brick, 67% (Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014), 291 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p.127) x 67% x 0.083 MJ/kg = 8.17 MJ/ m2 Building materials and elements - Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 15.78 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse materials and elements - Use Aluminium from recycled contents 0.0975 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) x 90% = 14.20 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Decrease energy US-made fly ash brick gains strength and durability from the chemical reaction of fly ash with water. However, 85 per cent less energy is used in production than in fired clay brick, (Volz & Stovner 2010; Structure Magazine 2015). Potential 40 per cent energy savings in brick manufacturing using 67% recycled container glass brick grog (Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014). Implementation Reduced energy 728 MJ/m2 x 40% = 291.2 MJ/m2 - Geopolymer mortar or replacing Portland with geopolymer cement results 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010), Reduced Cement = 89Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) / 1000 x 50.224 = 4.45 Kg/m2 Reduced cement 4.45 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 24.92 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008), 4.45 kg Cement/m2 x 60% x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 14.95 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Implementation Total Walls Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in carbon emissions 76% Use recycled aggregate for brick 8.17 KJ/m2 Aluminium from recycled content 15.78 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Standard 854MJ/ m2 40% saving energy in production 291.2 MJ/m2 Replacing geopolymer = 24.92 MJ/ m2 340.07 KJ/m2 854MJ/ m2 340.07 MJ/m2 Table A.C.96: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a cavity clay brick wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Aluminium from recycled Replacing geopolymer = 14.95MJ/ m2 content 14.20 MJ/m2 14.20 MJ/m2 14.95 MJ/m2 29.15 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 854 MJ/m2 854 MJ/ m2 261 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems n. Cavity Concrete Block Wall Table A.C.97: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a cavity concrete block wall (Lawson 1996, p, 129). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled materials as aggregate for concrete block Building materials and elements - Concrete from 100% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (299.57 Kg concrete – 41.93 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 129) = 21.38 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse recycled materials for concrete block Material-5 Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (299.57 Kg concrete – 24.47 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 129) x 20% = 4.27 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Implementation Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete block or 100% replacing recycled cement results 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Cement = 89Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) / 1000 x 275 = 24.47 Kg/ m2 Reduced cement 41.93 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson1996, p. 13) = 234.80 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 24.47 kg Cement/m2 x 60% x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 140.88 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) to reduce Measurable energy to reduce Use recycled materials as in Building materials and aggregate 21.38 MJ/ m2 elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Total Walls Embodied Energy Basic 511MJ/ m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement 234.80 MJ/m2 21.38 MJ/ m2 234.80 MJ/ m2 256.18 MJ/m2 511MJ/ m2 Table A.C.98: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a cavity concrete block wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for concrete block = 4.27 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 262 Embodied Energy Basic 511 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacement 140.88 MJ/m2 4.27 MJ/m2 140.88 MJ/m2 145.15 MJ/m2 511 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems o. Single Skin Stabilized Rammed Earth Wall Table A.C.99: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin stabilized rammed earth wall (Lawson 1996, p. 130). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Decreased and Replaced energy in process Implementation Replaced cement Geopolymer Concrete or 100% replacing with recycled cement (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 570 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 5% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 28.5 kg replaced cement/ m2 28.5 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 273.72 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 570 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 5% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) x 60% = 17.10 kg replaced cement/ m2 17.10 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 95.76 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Basic Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in carbon emissions (embodied energy) Measurable energy to reduce Replacing geopolymer = 273.72MJ/ m2 in Building materials and 405MJ/ m2 elements Total Walls 273.72 MJ/ m2 273.72 MJ/m2 405MJ/ m2 Table A.C.100: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin stabilized rammed earth wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Replacing geopolymer = 95.76MJ/ m2 95.76 MJ/m2 95.76 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 405 MJ/m2 405 MJ/ m2 263 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems p. Single Skin autoclaved Aerated Concrete Block (AAC) wall Table A.C.101: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin autoclaved aerated concrete block (AAC) wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled materials as aggregate for concrete block Building materials and elements - Concrete from 800% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (102 + 8.11+ 18.98) Kg concrete – 11.49 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, 9. 129) x 80% = 9.76 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse recycled materials for concrete block Material-5 Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (129.09 Kg concrete – 11.49 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 129) x 20% = 1.95 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Implementation Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete block or 100% replacing with recycled cement results 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Cement = 89Kgs/tonne Concrete Block Association 2013) / 1000 x 129.09 = 11.49 Kg/ m2 Reduced cement 11.49 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 64.34 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing max. 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 11.49 kg Cement/m2 x 60% x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson1996, p. 13) = 38.60 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reduction Measurable energy to reduce Use recycled materials as in Building materials and aggregate 9.76 MJ/ m2 elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Total Walls Embodied Energy Basic 440MJ/ m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement 64.34 MJ/m2 9.76 MJ/ m2 64.34 MJ/ m2 74.10 MJ/m2 440MJ/ m2 Table A.C.102: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin autoclaved aerated concrete block (AAC) wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129). Life Cycle Stages of building j Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for concrete block = 1.95 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 264 Embodied Energy Basic 440 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 38.60 MJ/m2 1.95 MJ/m2 38.60 MJ/m2 2 40.55 MJ/m 440 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems q. Single Skin Cored Concrete Block Wall Table A.C.103: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin cored concrete block wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled materials as aggregate for concrete block Building materials and elements - Concrete from 100% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (175 + 1.6+ 1.8) Kg concrete – 15.88 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 129) = 14.80 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused recycled materials for concrete block Material-5 Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (1178.40 Kg concrete – 15.88 kg cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 129) x 20% = 2.96 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Implementation Replaced cement Geopolymer concrete block or 100% replacing with recycled cement results 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Cement = 89 Kgs/tonne (Concrete Block Association 2013) / 1000 x 178.40 = 15.88 Kg/ m2 Reduced cement 15.88 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 88.91 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing max. 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 15.88 kg Cement/m2 x 60% x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 53.34 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential carbon emission (embodied energy) reductions Measurable energy to reduce Use recycled materials as in Building materials and aggregate 14.80 MJ/ m2 elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Total Walls Embodied Energy Basic 317MJ/ m2 Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement 88.91 MJ/m2 14.80 MJ/ m2 88.91 MJ/ m2 103.71 MJ/m2 317MJ/ m2 Table A.C.104: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a single skin cored concrete block wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129) Life Cycle Stages of building j Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% Recycled aggregate for concrete block = 2.96 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall Embodied Energy Basic 317 MJ/m2 Geopolymer 60% Cement Replacement 53.34 MJ/m2 2.96 MJ/m2 53.34 MJ/m2 56.30 MJ/m2 317 MJ/ m2 265 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems r. Steel Frame, Compressed Fibre Cement Clad Wall Table A.C.105: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed compressed fibre cement clad wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused the recycled aggregates - Steel frame from average recycled content = (3.552 + 3.06) Kg x 38MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p, 13) 20.10 MJ/Kg = 6.612 KJ/Kg x 17.9 Kg/ m2 = 118.35 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements Reuse 40% recycled steel, 6.612 Kg x 38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) x 40% = 100.50 MJ/m2 recused materials in design Building materials and Reduce 20% steel in design 6.612 Kg x 38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 50.25 MJ/m2 Green Star elements Reuse materials and elements - Steel frame from average recycled content = 6.612 Kg x 38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 6.612 KJ/Kg X 17.9 Kg/ m2 x 90% = 106.51 MJ/m2 Reused materials in design Reduce 20% steel in design 6.612 Kg x 38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 50.25 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Decrease energy Implementation Geopolymer or 100% replacing cement results 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Cement = 14%x 16.9 =2.366 Kg/m2 Reduced cement 2.366 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p.13) = 13.24 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing with geopolymer, Reduced Cement = 14%x 16.9 =2.366 Kg/m2 Reduced cement 2.366 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 60% = 7.94 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential Reduction in Carbon Emissions Measurable energy to reduce Steel from recycled content Reuse recycled steel 100.50 MJ/m2 in Building materials and Reduce steel use in design 50.25 MJ/m2 385MJ/ m2 118.35 MJ/m2 elements Implementation Total Walls Replacing Geopolymer 13.24 MJ/ m2 131. 59 KJ/m2 150.75 MJ/m2 282.34 MJ/m2 385MJ/ m2 Table A.C.106: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed compressed fibre cement clad wall (Lawson 1996, p. 129). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 266 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Replacing Geopolymer 7.94 MJ/m2 Steel from recycled content 106.51 MJ/m2 Reduce steel use in design 50.25 MJ/m2 150.76 MJ/m2 7.94 MJ/m2 158.70 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 385 MJ/m2 385 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems s. 200 mm Hollow-Core Precast Concrete Wall Table A.C.107: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm hollow core precast concrete slab wall (Lawson 1996, p. 125-126). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused the recycled aggregates for concrete Building materials and elements - Concrete from 80% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083MJ/Kg x (298.5 kg/m2concrete – 41.79kg/m2 cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 80% = 17.04 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 3.432 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 47.70 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014) embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (298.50 kg/m2concrete – 41.79kg/m2 cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 20% = 4.26 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: 3.432 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 42.93MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy Replaced cement Geopolymer Concrete or 100% replacing with recycled cement (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 298.50 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 41.79 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete Implementation 41.79 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996. p. 13) = 234.02 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 298.50kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 32 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 60% =140.41 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to reduce in 80 % Concrete from recycled 100%Steel, beams from average aggregate = 17.04 MJ/m2 recycled content = 47.70 MJ/m2 Building materials and 908 MJ/m2 elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Total Floor Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement = 234.02 MJ/ m2 17.04 MJ/m2 281.72 MJ/m2 298.76 MJ/m2 908MJ/ m2 Table A.C.108: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a 200-mm hollow core precast concrete slab wall (Lawson 1996, p. 125) Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20%Recycled aggregate for 90%Steel mesh from average recycled concrete = 4.26 MJ/m2 content 42.93 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Floor Embodied Energy Basic 908 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 140.41 MJ/m2 4.26 MJ/m2 183.34 MJ/m2 187.60 MJ/m2 908 MJ/ m2 267 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems t. 150 mm Tilt-up Precast Concrete Wall Table A.C.109: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a tilt-up precast concrete wall (Lawson 1996, p. 131). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled aggregates for concrete - Concrete from 80% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083MJ/Kg x (360 kg/m2concrete – 50.14 kg/m2 cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 80% = 20.57 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel from average recycled content = 4 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 55.60 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (360 kg/m2concrete – 50.14kg/m2 cement) (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 20% = 5.14 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Green Star, Steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: 4 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 50.40MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Implement ation Geopolymer Concrete or 100% replacing cement (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 360 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 50.14 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 50.14 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1196, p. 13) = 280.78 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 298.50kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) 60% = kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 32 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 60% =168.48 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to reduce in Concrete from 80% recycled Steel from 100% average recycled aggregate = 20.57 MJ/m2 content = 55.60 MJ/m2 818 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Total Floor Geopolymer, replacing 100% of cement = 280.78 MJ/ m2 20.57 MJ/m2 336.38 MJ/m2 356.95 MJ/m2 818MJ/ m2 Table A.C.110: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a tilt-up precast concrete wall (Lawson 1996, p. 125). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Concrete from 20% recycled Steel mesh from 100% average recycled aggregate = 5.14 MJ/m2 content 50.40 MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Floor 268 Embodied Energy Basic 818 MJ/m2 Geopolymer, 60% Cement Replacements 168.48 MJ/m2 5.14 MJ/m2 218.88 MJ/m2 224.02 MJ/m2 818 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems u. Porcelain-Enamelled Steel Curtain Wall Table A.C.111: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a porcelain-enamelled steel curtain wall (Lawson 1996, p. 131). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reused the recycled aggregates - Steel frame from average recycled content = (2.43 + 4.31) Kg x 38MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996. p. 13) 20.10 MJ/Kg = 6.74 KJ/Kg x 17.9 Kg/ m2 = 120.64 MJ/m2 - Enamelled Steel facing from average recycled content = 4.86Kg x 38MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) 20.10 MJ/Kg = 4.86 KJ/Kg x 17.9 Kg/ m2 = 86.99 MJ/m2 Use Aluminium from recycled contents 1.62 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 262.27 MJ/m2 reduced materials in design Reduce 20% steel in design 6.74 Kg x 38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 51.22 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused materials and elements - Steel frame from average recycled content = 6.74 Kg x 38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 6.74 KJ/Kg X 17.9 Kg/ m2 x 90% = 108.58 MJ/m2 - Enamelled Steel facing from average recycled content = 4.86Kg x (38MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) 20.10 MJ/Kg = 4.86 KJ/Kg x 17.9 Kg/ m2 x 90% = 78.29 MJ/m2 Use Aluminium from recycled contents 1.485 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) x 90% = 236.05 MJ/m2 Reused materials in design Reduce 20% steel in design 6.74 Kg x 38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 51.22 MJ/m2 Decreased and Replaced energy in process Decrease energy Geopolymer or 100% replacing with recycled cement results 80% reduction in GHG (Geiger 2010) Reduced Cement = 14% x 14 kg/m2 = 1.96 Kg/m2 Implementation Reduced cement 1.96 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 10.97 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing geopolymer or recycled cement = 14%x 16.9 =2.366 Kg/m2 Reduced cement 1.96 Kg/ m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 60% = 6.58 MJ/ m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in Carbon Emissions Measurable energy to Steel from recycled content 120.64 Reduce steel use in design 51.22 reduce in Building MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Enamelled steel from recycled content Geopolymer replaced 10.97 materials and elements 865MJ/ m2 86.99 MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Aluminium from recycled content 262.27 MJ/m2 Implementation Total Walls Replacing with Geopolymer 13.24 MJ/ m2 469.90 KJ/m2 62.19 MJ/m2 523.09 MJ/m2 865MJ/ m2 Table A.C.112: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a porcelain-enamelled steel curtain wall (Lawson 1996, p. 131). Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to Steel from recycled content 108.58 Reduce steel use in design 51.28 reduce in Implementation MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Enamelled steel from recycled content Replacing with Geopolymer 6.58 2 78.29 MJ/m MJ/m2 Aluminium from recycled content 236.05 MJ/m2 Green Star, Total Wall 57.86 MJ/m2 422.92 MJ/m2 480.78 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 865 MJ/m2 865 MJ/ m2 269 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems v. Glass Curtain Wall Table A.C.113: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a glass curtain wall (Lawson 1996, p. 131). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled aggregates Use Aluminium from recycled content (1.454 + 0.77 + 0.288) kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 2.512 kg/m2 x 161.9 = 406.69 MJ/m2 Reduced materials in design Reduce 20% Aluminium in design 2.512 Kg x 170 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 85.40 MJ/m2 Building materials and Green Star elements Reuse materials and elements Use Aluminium from recycled contents 2.512 kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) x 90% = 366.02 MJ/m2 Reused materials in design Reduce 20% Aluminium in design 2.512 Kg x 170 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 85.40 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in Carbon Emissions Measurable energy to Aluminium from recycled content Reduce Aluminium use in design reduce in Building 770MJ/ m2 406.69 MJ/m2 85.40 MJ/m2 materials and elements Total Walls 406.69 KJ/m2 85.40 MJ/m2 492.09 MJ/m2 770MJ/ m2 Table A.C.114: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a glass curtain wall (Lawson 1996, p. 131). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 270 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Aluminium from recycled content Reduce Aluminium use in design 366.02 MJ/m2 85.40 MJ/m2 366.02 MJ/m2 85.40 MJ/m2 451.42 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 770 MJ/m2 770 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Wall l construction systems w. Steel Faced Sandwich Panel Wall Table A.C.115: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel faced sandwich panel wall (Lawson 1996, p. 132). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled aggregates - Steel frame from average recycled content = (0.774 + 0.185) Kg x 38MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) 20.10 MJ/Kg = 0.959 KJ/Kg x 17.9 Kg/ m2 = 17.16 MJ/m2 - Enamelled Steel facing from average recycled content = 9.734 Kg x 40 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 9.734 KJ/Kg x 19.9 Kg/ m2 = 193.70 MJ/m2 Reduced materials in design Reduce 20% steel in design 0.959 Kg x 38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 7.288 MJ/m2 Building materials and Green Star elements Reused materials and elements - Steel frame from average recycled content = 0.959 Kg x 38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 0.959 KJ/Kg X 17.9 Kg/ m2 x 90% = 15.44 MJ/m2 - Enamelled Steel facing from average recycled content = 9.734 Kg x 40MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg = 9.734 KJ/Kg x 19.9 Kg/ m2 x 90% = 174.33 MJ/m2 Reduced materials in design Reduce 20% steel in design 0.959 Kg x 38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 20% = 7.288 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to Steel from recycled content 17.16 Reduce steel use in design 7.28 reduce in Building MJ/m2 MJ/m2 1087MJ/ m2 Enamelled steel from recycled content materials and elements 2 193.70 MJ/m Total Walls 210.86 KJ/m2 7.28 MJ/m2 218.24 MJ/m2 1087MJ/ m2 Table A.C.116: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel faced sandwich panel wall (Lawson 1996, p. 132). Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Measurable energy to Steel from recycled content 15.44 Reduce steel use in design 7.28 reduce in Implementation MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Enamelled steel from recycled content 174.33 MJ/m2 Green Star, Total Wall 7.28 MJ/m2 189.77 MJ/m2 197.05 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 1087 MJ/m2 1087 MJ/ m2 271 Appendix C Australian general Wall construction systems x. Aluminium Curtain Wall Table A.C.117: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in an aluminium curtain wall (Lawson 1996, p. 132). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reuse recycled aggregates Use Aluminium from recycled content (1.4544 + 0.7704 + 0.288 + 2.4435) kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 4.95 64 kg/m2 x 161.9 = 802.44 MJ/m2 Building materials and Green Star elements Reuse materials and elements Use Aluminium from recycled content (1.4544 + 0.7704 + 0.288 + 2.4435) kg/m2 (170 Mj/kg new – 8.1 Mj/kg from recycled) = 4.95 64 kg/m2 x 161.9 x 90%= 722.19 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Pre-Construction Construction Standard Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to Aluminium from recycled content reduce in Building 802.44 MJ/m2 935MJ/ m2 materials and elements Total Walls 802.44 KJ/m2 802.44 MJ/m2 935MJ/ m2 Table A.C.118: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in an aluminium curtain wall (Lawson 1996, p. 132). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Wall 272 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Aluminium from recycled content 722.19 MJ/m2 722.19 MJ/m2 722.19 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 935 MJ/m2 935 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems A.C.2.3 Potential carbon emission reduction in general Australian roof construction systems a. Timber Frame, Timber Shingle Roof Table A.C.119: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber shingle roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 51 (Design Coalition 2013) = 20.40 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 60% x 51 MJ/m2 = 30.60 MJ/m2 - Use insulation from recycled materials, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.6255kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Reuse materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 51 (Design Coalition 2013) = 20.40 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses, 55% x 51 MJ/m2 = 28.05 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Reduction in Carbon Emissions Trusses from recycled trusses Using recycled trusses 30.60 MJ/m2 Use recycled thermal insulation 17.57MJ/m2 20.4 MJ/m2 20.4 MJ/m2 Total Roof 48.17 MJ/m2 68.57 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 151MJ/m2 151MJ/ m2 Table A.C.120: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed timber shingle roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Green Star, Total Roof 273 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Softwood Trusses from Using recycled trusses 28.05 MJ/m2 recycled trusses 20.40 MJ/m2 20.40 MJ/ m2 48.45 MJ/m 2 28.05 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 151 MJ/m2 151 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems b. Timber Frame, Fiber Cement Shingle Roof Table A.C.121: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed fibre cement shingle roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 43 (Design Coalition 2013) = 17.2 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 60% x 43 MJ/m2 = 25.8 MJ/m2 - Use insulation from recycled materials, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.6255kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Being small and modular in nature, concrete roof tile is less prone to waste. Roof tiles can be crushed and recycled (LEED 2014) Use tiles from recycled roof tiles, 144 MJ/m2 x 13% (LEED 2014) = 18.72 MJ/m2 Use tiles from recycled roof tiles (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) from 45% recycled content Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (19 concrete – 2.66 cement) Kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 134) x 50% = 0.083 x 16.34 kg/m2 x 50% (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) = 6.78 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, 95% of all timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 43 (Design Coalition 2013) = 17.2 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses, 55% x 43 MJ/m2 = 23.65 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Reduction in Carbon Emissions Trusses from recycled trusses Using recycled trusses 25.8 MJ/m2 Use recycled thermal insulation 17.57MJ/m2 17.2 MJ/m2 Recycled fibre cement 13%- 18.72 MJ/m2 Use fibre cement with recycled contents 6.78 MJ/m2 17.2 MJ/m2 Total Roof 55.33 MJ/m2 74.1 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 291MJ/m2 291MJ/ m2 Table A.C.122: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed fibre cement shingle roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Green Star, Total Roof 274 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Softwood Trusses from Using recycled trusses 23.65 MJ/m2 recycled trusses 17.2 MJ/m2 17.2 MJ/ m2 40.85 MJ/m2 23.65 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 291 MJ/m2 291 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems c. Timber Frame, Steel Sheet Roof Table A.C.123: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed steel sheet roof (Lawson 1996, p. 133). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel from average recycled content - Steel sheet from recycled contents {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996) – 20.50 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x 4.9 kg/ m2 = 85.75 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 34 MJ/m2 (Design Coalition 2013) = 13.6 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 60% x 34 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 133) = 20.4 MJ/m2 - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.825kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Building materials and elements Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel, Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled contents) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Steel sheet from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996. p. 144) – 20.50 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x 4.9 kg/ m2 x 90% = 77.17 MJ/m2 Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 34 (Design Coalition 2013) = 13.6 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 55% x 34 MJ/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 133) = 18.7 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Construction Embodied Energy Basic Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in carbon emissions Trusses from recycled timber 40% Use recycled trusses 60% Measurable energy to 13.6 MJ/m2 20.4 MJ/m2 reduce in Building 330MJ/ m2 Steel sheet from recycled content Use recycled thermal materials and elements 2 2 insulation 17.57 MJ/m 85.75 MJ/m Total Roof, Research 99.35 MJ/m2 37.97 MJ/m2 137.32 MJ/m2 330MJ/ m2 Table A.C.124: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed steel sheet roof (Lawson 1996, p. 133). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Roof Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel sheet from 90% recycled Use recycled trusses 55% 18.7 MJ/m2 content = 77.17 MJ/m2 Trusses from recycled timber 40% 13.6 MJ/m2 18.7 MJ/m2 90.77 MJ/m2 109.47 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 330 MJ/m2 330 MJ/ m2 275 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems d. Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof Table A.C.125: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel sheet roof (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel from average recycled content - Steel sheet from average recycled content = 4.9 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.135) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 87.71 MJ/m2 - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.33 + 0.754) kg/ m2 = 71.47 MJ/m2 Reuse materials and elements - Use 40% recycled trusses (UK Indemand 2014) 40% x 4.084 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg = 55.54 MJ/m2 - Reduce 20% steel use in design, 4.9 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.135) x 20%= 33.32 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.55kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel, Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Steel sheet from average recycled content = 4.9 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} x 90% = 78.93 MJ/m2 - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.33 + 0.754) kg/ m2 x 90% = 64.32 MJ/m2 Reduce 20% steel use in design, 4.9 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) x 20%= 33.32 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential reduction in carbon emission (embodied energy) Steel frame from average Use recycled trusses = 55.54 MJ/m2 recycled content 71.47 MJ/m2 Use recycled insulation = 17.57 Steel Sheet from recycled MJ/m2 Reduce steel in design 33.32 MJ/m2 content 87.71 MJ/m2 Total Roof 159.18 MJ/m2 73.11 MJ/m2 232.29 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 483 MJ/ m2 483 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.126: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel sheet roof (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Roof 276 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel sheet from 90% Recycled Reduce steel in design 33.32 content = 78.93 MJ/m2 MJ/m2 Steel frame from 90% Recycled content = 64.32 MJ/m2 143.25 MJ/m2 33.32 MJ/m2 178.57 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 483 MJ/ m2 483 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems e. Timber Frame, Concrete Tile Roof Table A.C.127: Potential carbon emission reductions in a timber framed concrete tile roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 43 (Design Coalition 2013) = 17.2 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 60% x 43 MJ/m2 = 25.8 MJ/m2 - Use insulation from recycled materials, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.6255kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Being small and modular in nature, concrete roof tile is less prone to waste. Roof tiles can be crushed and recycled (LEED 2014) Use tiles from recycled roof tiles, 92 MJ/m2 x 13% (LEED 2014) = 11.96 MJ/m2 Use tiles from recycled roof tiles (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) from 45% recycled content Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (44 concrete – 6.16 cement) Kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 134) x 45% = 0.083 x 37.84 kg/m2 x 50% (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) = 1.57 MJ/m2 Green Star Reuse materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 43 (Design Coalition 2013) = 17.2 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses 55% x 43 MJ/m2 = 23.65 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Reduction in Carbon Emissions Trusses from recycled trusses Using recycled trusses 25.8 MJ/m2 Use recycled thermal insulation 17.57MJ/m 17.2 MJ/m2 Use recycled roof tiles 13%, 11.96 MJ/m2 Use tiles with recycled contents 1.57 MJ/m2 18.77 MJ/m2 Total Roof 55.33 MJ/m2 74.1 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 240MJ/m2 240MJ/ m2 Table A.C.128: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed concrete tile roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Green Star, Total Roof Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Softwood Trusses from Using recycled trusses 23.65 MJ/m2 recycled trusses 17.2 MJ/m2 21.51 MJ/ m2 45.16 MJ/m2 23.65 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 240 MJ/m2 240 MJ/ m2 277 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems f. Steel Frame, Concrete Tile Roof Table A.C.129: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed concrete tile roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel from average recycled content - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.33 + 0.754) kg/ m2 = 71.47 MJ/m2 Reuse materials and elements - Use 40% recycled trusses (UK Indemand 2014) 40% x 4.084 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg = 55.54 MJ/m2 Reduce 20% steel use in design, 4.9 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) x 20%= 33.32 MJ/m2 - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.55kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Use tiles from recycled roof tiles, 92 MJ/m2 x 13% (LEED 2014) = 11.96 MJ/m2 Use tiles from recycled roof tiles (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) from 45% recycled content Building materials and elements Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (44 concrete – 6.16 cement) Kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 134) x 45% = 0.083 x 37.84 kg/m2 x 50% (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) =1.57 MJ/m2 Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel, Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled contents) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Steel sheet from average recycled content = 4.9 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} x 90% = 78.93 MJ/m2 - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.33 + 0.754) kg/ m2 x 90% = 64.32 MJ/m2 Reduce 20% steel use in design, 4.9 Kg x 34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.135) x 20% = 33.32 MJ/m2 Construction Embodied Energy Life Cycle Stages of Basic Pre-Construction Construction building Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to Steel frame from average Use recycled trusses = 55.54 MJ/m2 reduce in Building recycled content 71.47 MJ/m2 Use Recycled insulation = 17.57 Recycled tiles used 11.96 materials and MJ/m2 450 MJ/ m2 Reduce steel use in design 33.32 elements MJ/m2 2 Tiles from recycled content MJ/m 1.57 MJ/m2 Total Roof 85 MJ/m2 106.43 MJ/m2 191.43 MJ/m2 450 MJ/ m2 Table A.C.130: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed concrete tile roof (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Roof 278 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel frame from 90% recycled Reduce steel use in design 33.32 content = 64.32 MJ/m2 MJ/m2 64.32 MJ/m2 33.32 MJ/m2 97.64 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 450 MJ/ m2 450 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems g. Timber Frame, Terracotta Tile Roof Table A.C.131: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed terracotta tile roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 43 (Design Coalition 2013) = 17.2 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 60% x 43 MJ/m2 = 25.8 MJ/m2 - Use insulation from recycled materials, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.6255kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Being small and modular in nature, concrete roof tile is less prone to waste. Roof tiles can be crushed and recycled, (LEED 2014) Use tiles from recycled roof tiles, 123 MJ/m2 x 13% (LEED 2014) = 15.99 MJ/m2 Use tile from recycled tiles (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) from 45% recycled content Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (49 concrete) Kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 134) x 50% = 0.083 x 49 kg/m2 x 50% (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) = 2.033 MJ/m2 Green Star Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 43 (Design Coalition 2013) = 17.2 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses, 55% x 43 MJ/m2 = 23.65 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Reduction in Carbon Emissions Trusses from recycled trusses Using recycled trusses 25.8 MJ/m2 Use recycled thermal insulation 17.57MJ/m 17.2 MJ/m2 Use recycled tiles 13%, 15.99 MJ/m2 Tile from recycled content 2.033 MJ/m2 17.20 MJ/m2 Total Roof 61.39 MJ/m2 78.59 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 271MJ/m2 271MJ/ m2 Table A.C.132: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed terracotta tile roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Green Star, Total Roof Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Softwood Trusses from Using recycled trusses 23.65 MJ/m2 recycled trusses 17.2 MJ/m2 21.51 MJ/ m2 45.16 MJ/m2 23.65 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 271 MJ/m2 271 MJ/ m2 279 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems h. Timber Frame, Synthetic Rubber Membrane Roof Table A.C.133: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed synthetic rubber membrane roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Building materials and elements Reused materials and elements - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 43 (Design Coalition 2013) = 17.2 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses = 60% x 43 MJ/m2 = 25.8 MJ/m2 - Use insulation from recycled materials, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.6255kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Reused materials and elements (local salvage/re-use centre) Material-8 Timber, Green Star Technical Manual, 95% of all timber products re-used, postconsumer recycled timber or FSC certified timber - Softwood Trusses from recycled trusses 40% x 43 (Design Coalition 2013) = 17.2 MJ/m2 - Using recycled trusses 55% x 43 MJ/m2 = 23.65 MJ/m2 Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Reduction in Carbon Emissions Trusses from recycled trusses Using recycled trusses 25.8 MJ/m2 Use recycled thermal insulation 17.2 MJ/m2 17.57MJ/m2 17.20 MJ/m2 Total Roof 43.37 MJ/m2 60.57 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 386MJ/m2 386MJ/ m2 Table A.C.134: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a timber framed synthetic rubber membrane roof (Lawson 1996, p. 134). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Green Star, Total Roof 280 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Softwood Trusses from Using recycled trusses 23.65 MJ/m2 recycled trusses 17.2 MJ/m2 21.51 MJ/ m2 45.16 MJ/m 2 23.65 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 386 MJ/m2 386 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems i. Concrete Slab, Synthetic Rubber Membrane Roof Table A.C.135: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a concrete slab synthetic rubber membrane roof (Lawson 1996, p. 135) Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Reused recycled aggregate for concrete - Concrete from 80% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (360 concrete – 48.88cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 125) x 80% = 19.97 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content - Steel mesh +Edge beams from average recycled content = 7.153 Kg x {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 99.42MJ/m2 Building materials and elements Green Star Reused recycled aggregate for concrete Material-5 Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 20%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Concrete from 20% Recycled aggregate (Uche 2008; PCA 2014), embodied energy of aggregate is 0.083 MJ/Kg Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (360 concrete –59.14 cement) Kg (Lawson 1996, p.125) x 20% = 4.99 MJ/m2 Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Green Star Technical Manual, Steel is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: 7.153 Kg x 90% {34 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 89.48 MJ/m2 Implementation Decreased and Replaced energy in process Replaced cement Geopolymer Concrete or 100% replacing with recycled cement (Nath & Sarker 2014) results 97% reduction in GHG (McLellan et al. 2011) 360 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson1996, p. 41) = 48.88 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 48.88 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) = 273.72 MJ/ m2 Green Star Replacing maximum 60% of cement (Green building Council of Australia 2008) 360 kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 124) x 14% Cement (Lawson 1996, p. 41) = 29.33 kg replaced cement/ m2 in concrete 29.33 kg Cement/m2 x 5.6 MJ/kg (Lawson 1996, p. 13) x 60% = 164.24 MJ/ m2 Life cycle stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Building materials and elements Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Concrete from 80% recycled Steel mesh, beams from average recycled aggregate = 19.97 MJ/m2 content = 99.42 MJ/m Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Embodied Energy Basic 645MJ/m2 Geopolymer replacing 100% of cement = 273.72 MJ/ m2 19.97 MJ/m2 Total Floor 373.14 MJ/m2 393.11 MJ/m 2 645MJ/ m2 Table A.C.136: Green star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a concrete slab synthetic rubber membrane roof (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction 20% recycled aggregate for 90% Steel mesh from average recycled concrete = 4.99 MJ/m2 content 89.48MJ/m2 Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Floor Embodied Energy Basic 645 MJ/m2 Geopolymer 60% Cement Replacement 164.24 MJ/m2 4.99 MJ/m2 253.72 MJ/m2 258.71 MJ/m2 645MJ/ m2 281 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems j. Steel Frame, Fibre Cement Sheet Roof Table A.C.137: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed fibre cement sheet roof (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel from average recycled content - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 = 61.61 MJ/m2 Reuse materials and elements - Use 40% recycled trusses (UK Indemand 2014) 40% x 3.734 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg = 50.78 MJ/m2 - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.55kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Use fibre cement from recycled contents, 106 MJ/m2 x 13% (LEED 2014) = 13.78MJ/m2 Building materials and elements Use fibre cement from recycled contents (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) from 45% recycled content Saved embodied energy = embodied energy of aggregate 0.083 MJ/Kg x (44 concrete – 6.16 cement) Kg/m2 (Lawson 1996, p. 134) x 45% = 0.083 x 14 kg/m2 x 50% (Herbudiman & Saptaji 2013) = 5.81 MJ/m2 Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel, Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled contents) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 x 90% = 55.44 MJ/m2 Construction Embodied Energy Life Cycle Stages of Basic Pre-Construction Construction building Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to Steel frame from average Use recycled trusses = 50.78 MJ/m2 reduce in Building recycled content 61.61 MJ/m2 Use recycled insulation = 17.57 337 MJ/ m2 Reuse Fibre cement sheet materials and MJ/m2 Fiber cement sheet from recycled 13.78MJ/m2 elements contents 5.81 MJ/m2 Total Roof 75.39 MJ/m2 74.16 MJ/m2 149.55 MJ/m2 337MJ/ m2 Table A.C.138: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed fibre cement sheet roof (Lawson 1996, p, 135). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Roof 282 Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel frame from 90% recycled content = 55.44 MJ/m2 55.44 MJ/m2 55.44 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 337 MJ/m2 337 MJ/ m2 Appendix C Australian general Roof construction systems k. Steel Frame, Steel Sheet Roof (commercial) Table A.C.139: Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel sheet roof (commercial) (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Processes where carbon emissions (embodied energy) can be reduced Steel from average recycled content - Steel sheet from average recycled content = 5.6 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.135) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} = 100.24 MJ/m2 - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 = 61.61 MJ/m2 Reuse materials and elements - Use 40% recycled trusses (UK Indemand 2014) 40% x 3.734 kg/m2 x 34 MJ/Kg = 50.78 MJ/m2 Building materials and elements - Use recycled thermal insulation, 49MJ/kg (Lawson 1996) - 20.90 MJ/kg x 0.55kg/m2 = 17.57 MJ/m2 (Steel Construction Information 2014) Green Star Steel from average recycled content Material-6 Steel, Green Star Technical Manual, is considered maximum 90%, therefore reduced embodied energy by this credit (Steel from 90% Recycled content) (Green building Council of Australia 2008) is: - Steel sheet from average recycled content = 5.6 Kg x {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p.135) - 20.10 MJ/Kg} x 90% = 90.21 MJ/m2 - Steel frame roofing from recycled content {38 MJ/Kg (Lawson 1996, p. 135) – 21.5 MJ/Kg} = 17.5 MJ/Kg x (3.384 + 0.35) kg/ m2 x 90% = 55.44 MJ/m2 Construction Embodied Energy Life Cycle Stages of Basic Pre-Construction Construction building Potential reduction in carbon emissions Measurable energy to Steel frame from average Use recycled trusses = 50.78 MJ/m2 reduce in Building recycled content 61.61 MJ/m2 Use recycled insulation = 17.57 401 MJ/ m2 Steel Sheet from recycled materials and MJ/m2 content 100.24 MJ/m2 elements Total Roof 161.85 MJ/m2 68.35 MJ/m2 230.20 MJ/m2 401MJ/ m2 Table A.C.140: Green Star. Potential reduction in carbon emissions in a steel framed steel sheet roof (commercial) (Lawson 1996, p. 135). Life Cycle Stages of building Measurable energy to reduce in Implementation Green Star, Total Roof Construction Pre-Construction Construction Potential Carbon Emission (Embodied Energy) Reduction Steel sheet from 90% Recycled content = 90.21 MJ/m2 Steel frame from 90% Recycled content = 55.44 MJ/m2 145.65 MJ/m2 145.65 MJ/m2 Embodied Energy Basic 401 MJ/m2 401 MJ/ m2 283 Appendix D APPENDIX D DATA RELATING TO CHAPTER FIVE References, specifications and detailed information in these tables relates to data in Chapter Five. 284 Appendix D Table A.D.1: Bioclimatic conditions – current; from best practice with green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM); from this research model; and from research and lab Bioclimatic Design Principles Criteria Concrete from recycled aggregates Conditions with Green tools G.S., LEED, BREEAM In Australia, there are a number of G.S. and LEED 1-3 points 20-30% RA for manufactured and recycled aggregates structural purpose; BRE 25-50% in 20-40 MPa readily available in certain localities 1 no restriction, 100% non-structural 2, 18, 36 Concrete block from recycled 24% recycled content of an aggregate G.S., BRE, 40%; US 25% RA structural; 100%, or aggregate concrete block 8 no natural aggregates in non-structural 18,23,36 Brick from recycled Current level of recycled material G.S., 30%;16, 23; LEED 20%; BRE 11% ISO, up aggregates content in brick is 11% 14,41 to 10 points for 10% Recycled aggregate 14,16,36 Steel from average recycled Primary typically 10-15% of scrap steel, G.S. Mat-6, 60%; LEED 65-97.5%; BRE, Mat-6, Secondary 100% scrap based production 60%; -97.5% beams, plates; 65% bars; 66% steel content 25, 34 deck post-consumer recycled content 23,16,38 Reuse recycled and postG.S., 95% Joinery, 50% structural framing, Scaffolding, formwork, sheet piles, etc., consumer structural and nonroofing; LEED 75-100% existing wall, floor, 32, 34 London Olympic Stadium structural steel roof; BRE, Mat-6, 60% recycled content 3,5,23,24 Reduce material use in steel Some current green projects have G.S., Mat-6, 10-20% one point; LEED, reduced materials use in design 10-20% eliminating need for materials in the design stage; structural design 10-20% 23 BRE reduced, avoiding over-design 23,21,10,7,32 Reuse recycled timber and FSC works in 80 countries, 24000 FSC G.S. 95% re-used, post-consumer; FSC certified chain of custody certificates are active in timber; up to 3 points; LEED, 50% FSC; BRE, 3 post-consumer FSC timber 107 countries23, points, post-consumer waste stream 22, 23, 32,24,29 In some countries materials such as G.S. Mat-5, 1 point, no natural aggregates are Roof tile from recycled tiles concrete roof tiles, removed separated and used; LEED, from the waste, up to3.5 points, recycled44, 45 BRE, M03, from the waste stream 20,21,23,36 Thermal insulation from Thermal insulation is fully recyclable, i.e. G.S. 80% advised; LEED MR4 20%, ½ point, recycled content wool content,31 BRE 80%, 1 point, responsibly sourced 12.7,27,37 Portland cement replaced with Geopolymer has been used in structural, G.S. 60% In situ concrete; 40% precast 30% non-structural, e.g. GCI in Qld, stressed concrete; LEED, 30% structural; no limit geopolymer based cement Wellcamp Airport 46,47,48 others, BRE, responsibly sourced cement 23,26,7 Reduce transportation by National Waste Policy Australia advice Green tools credit reusing and recycling up to 40% of materials, not directly credited; obtained reusing and recycled materials to reduce waste, re-use to reduce environmental impact 35 from30km radius of the site 2,15,35,37 Transportation by water or 15% of bricks are transported to LEED, Regional Materials, up to 2 points 14 tools rail not truck, Reduce advise localizing, using water and rail instead of distributor’s yard or jobsite by rail and transportation by localizing road2,15 85% by truck 19, 30 Current conditions, Implemented Conditions in this research Fully RA for non-structural purpose; 100% RA for non-structural; 80 % RA for structural purpose 6 Aggregate for concrete block fully from recycled aggregate 13 Reuse the recycled aggregate for brick, 67% 19 Steel from fully post-consumer recycled contents Use 40% recycled and postconsumer steel elements Conditions in research and lab ADAA, ASA, UNSW, Standards Australia; 4, fully RA for non-structural; 30-75-80 % RA for structural 13,11 UK, USA, AUS; 11, fully RA for concrete block13 US; UK, Reuse fully recycled aggregate for brick, 6 points 11, 17 Steel from 65-97.5% post-consumer recycled contents 22, 39 Steel products are re-usable, steel piles, hollow sections; gauge, purlins, rails 32,.31 Integrative Design Process (IDP) Linear design; the London Olympics structure 1/10 32, 42 60% of all timber products re-used, AUS; fully timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber; FSC post-consumer, recycled or are FSC certified timber certified timber 43 US; UK; AUS,50% Roof tile from 50% Roof tile from recycled recycled aggregate RA; roof tiles are 21 aggregate 100% recoverable 21, 45 Thermal insulation from fully US; UK; Thermal insulation 100% from recycled waste 25 recycled waste 25 Geopolymer based cement fully Geopolymer based cement fully replaces replaces Portland cement arranged for Portland cement, arranged for nonnon-structural, structural structural and structural 13, 28 Reuse has been considered in Transportation reduction by increasing material production and building reuse and recycling is considered in elements current study in UK 32 Transport of construction materials in UK has been examined in London Localizing has been considered Olympics 30 Reduced materials use in structural design 10-20% Sources: 1-(Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia 2015; Gonzalez-Fonteboa 2005) 2-(Green building Council of Australia GBCA 2008) 3-(Subasic 2016) 4-(Ash Development Association of Australia 2013; Low carbon living CRC 2015) 5-(Green Building Council of Australia 2012) 6-Chapter Seven 7-(US Green Building Council 2010) 8.(Concrete Block Association 2013) 9-(GBCA 2016) 10- (LEED 2016 ); 11-(Poon, Kou & Lam 2002; Concrete Block Association 2013) 13-(Uche 2008; PCA 2014) 14-(Brick Development Association 2009); 15-(LEED 2014) 16-(Kang and Kren 2007) 17-(Volz and Stovner 2010) 18-(Obla, Kim & Lobo. 2010) 19-(Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014) 20-(Boral 2014) 21-(LEED 2014); 22-(Steel Construction Information 2014) 23-(GBCA 2008; US Green Building Council 2011) 24-(LEED US Green Building Council 2005) 25-(Steel Construction Information 2014; Greenspec 2015) 26-(Ash Development Association of Australia 2013) 27-(US Green Building Council 2011) 28-(Geopolymer House 2011; Nath & Sarker 2014) 29- (Forest Stewardship Council 2010) 30(Learning Legacy 2012; Benn, Dunphy & Griffiths 2014) 31-(Ecospecifier Global 2016) 32-(Allwood et al. 2012; UK Indemand 2014, 2015) 34-(Learning Legacy 2012; Inhabitat 2014; Steel Construction Information 2014) 35-(DEE 2012) 36-(Chisholm 2011) 37- (BREEAM 2014b); 38-(Dowling 2010) 39-(Kang & Kren 2007) 41-(Brick Industry Association 2016) 42- (CNN 2012) 43- (FSC 2015) 44-(Tam, Gao & Tam 2005) 45-(NSW Government 2010) 46(Zeobond Group 2014) 47-(Geopolymer Institute 2014) 48-(Wellcamp 2014) | Table prepared by Author 285 Appendix D Table A.D.2: Bioclimatic conditions of the research considered in current practice; green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM); and from research and lab Bioclimatic Design Principles Criteria Concrete from recycled aggregates Concrete block from recycled aggregate Brick from recycled aggregates Current conditions In Australia, there are a number of manufactured and recycled aggregates readily available in certain localities 1 24% recycled content of an aggregate concrete block 8 Current level of recycled material content in brick is 11% Australian Tool Green Star (GBCA) Green Star, one point, 20% of aggregate for structural purpose; no natural aggregate used in nonstructural purposes 2 Green Star, 40% RA; no natural aggregates in non-structural 23,33 Green Star, not directly credit, Mat-3, 80% reused material 2,9, 16 US Green Tool UK Green Tool LEED BREEAM LEED, recycled content, 10-20% of BREEAM, 25-50% RA; no aggregate up to 3 points; 2, 24; 20-30% restriction in 16 MPa and 40 of aggregate for structural 100% non- MPa; 20% Designated concrete structural purposes, US 18,36 20-40 MPa 2, 36 ASTM, structural 20-25% coarse BREEAM, no restriction in 16 aggregate; 100% up to 20 MPa 18, 36 MPa and 40 for Concrete block36 LEED, recycled content in brick 10- BREEAM; all waste reused; 20%, MR 4, 2 points, 2 ½ point 14 recycled content is 11% 14 Research and Lab ADAA, ASA, UNSW, Standards Australia; 4, fully RA for nonstructural; 30-75-80 % RA for structural 13,11 UK, USA, AUS; 11, fully RA for concrete block 13 US, UK reuse fully recycled aggregate for brick, 6 points 11,14 LEED, 65-97.5% post-consumer recycled content 23, 16 Steel from 65-97.5% postconsumer recycled content 22, 16 14,41 Steel from average recycled content Primary typically 10-15% of scrap steel, Secondary 100% scrap based production 25, 34 Reuse recycled and postScaffolding, formwork, sheet consumer steel in structural piles, etc., London Olympic & non-structural Stadium 32, 34 Reduce material use in steel Some current green projects have reduced materials use in structural design design 10-20% 23 Green Star, Mat-6; maximum 60% post-consumer recycled content 23 95% of joinery; 50% of structural framing, roofing, designed to be disassembled 5 Green Star, Mat-6, grade reduced materials in design,10-20%, 23 Mat-10, one point for 20% reduce Reuse recycled timber and FSC works in 80 countries, 24000 Green Star 95% of all timber post-consumer FSC timber FSC chain of custody certificates products re-used, post-consumer; are active in 107 countries23, FSC certified timber 22, 23 Roof tiles from recycled In some countries materials such Green Star, Mat-5 one point, as concrete roof tiles, removed where no natural aggregates are tiles separated and recycled44, 45 used in non-structural uses 23 Thermal insulation from Thermal insulation is fully Green Star, not directly credit but recycled content recyclable, i.e. wool content,31 80% recycled content advised 27, Portland cement replaced Geopolymer has been used in Green Star; Maximum 60% In situ with Geopolymer based structural, non-structural, e.g. concrete 40% precast and 30% for GCI in Qld, Wellcamp Airport stressed concrete; 30% for 1 point cement 46,47,48 and 40% for 2 points 23, 26 Reduce transportation by National Waste Policy Australia Green tools credit the reusing and reusing and recycling advice to reduce waste, re-use to recycling up to 40% of materials, materials reduce environmental impact 35 not directly credited 2, 15, 35 Transportation by water or 15% of bricks are transported to Green Star, advise localizing, rail not truck, Reduce using water and rail instead of distributor’s yard or jobsite by transportation by localizing rail and 85% by truck 19, 30 road 2,15 LEED, 1-2 points to 75-100% reuse of existing walls, floors and roof.24, 3 BREEAM, Mat-6;60% recycled content;38 97.5% beams, plates; 65% bars; 66% steel deck, 16 BREEAM, Mat-6; maximum 60% recycled content 23 LEED, eliminating the need for materials in the planning and design phases, 10, 7 BREEAM, grade reduced materials in design 21 avoiding over-design, material reuse 39 Steel products are re-usable, steel piles, hollow sections; gauge, purlins, rails 32,.31 Integrative Design Process (IDP) Linear design; the London Olympics structure 1/10 32, 42 LEED, timber products re-used, postconsumer; 50% FSC certified timber, up to 1 point 32, 29, 24 LEED credits; produced from postconsumer recycled content, from the waste, up to3.5 points 20,21 LEED, MR4, 20% or more recycled thermal insulation, one point 12, 7 LEED Concrete consists of at least 30% fly ash; 50% recycled content or reclaimed aggregate; 90% recycled content or reclaimed aggregate 23, 12,7 Green tools credit the reusing and recycling up to 40% of materials, not directly credited 2, 15 LEED, Regional Materials, up to 4 points;14 tools advise localizing, using water and rail instead of road 2,15 BREEAM; up to three points where timber is part of a pre-or post-consumer waste stream 36 BREEAM; M03, roof tiles can be extracted from the waste stream 36 80% thermal insulation must be responsibly sourced 1 point 37 One point awarded where cement used to make cement as the supply chain process and must be responsibly sourced 40 One credit where obtained from waste processing site(s) within a 30km radius of the site, 37 Regional Materials, localizing, using water and rail instead of road 2,15 AUS; fully timber products reused, post-consumer, recycled or are FSC certified timber 43 US; UK; AUS,50% Roof tile from recycled aggregate RA; roof tiles are 100% recoverable 21, 45 US; UK; Thermal insulation 100% from recycled content; 25, Geopolymer cement fully replaces Portland cement, arranged for non-structural and structural purposes 13, 28 Transportation reduction by increasing reusing, recycling is considered in current study, UK39 Transport construction materials in UK has already examined in London Olympics 30 Sources: 1-(Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia 2015; Gonzalez-Fonteboa 2005) 2-(Green building Council of Australia GBCA 2008) 3-(Subasic 2016) 4-(Ash Development Association of Australia 2013; Low carbon living CRC 2015) 5-(Green Building Council of Australia 2012) 6-Chapter Seven 7-(US Green Building Council 2010) 8.(Concrete Block Association 2013) 9-(GBCA 2016) 10- (LEED 2016 ); 11-(Poon, Kou & Lam 2002; Concrete Block Association 2013) 12- (LEED 2016)13-(Uche 2008; PCA 2014) 14-(Brick Development Association 2009); 15-(LEED 2014) 16-(Kang and Kren 2007) 17-(Volz and Stovner 2010) 18-(Obla, Kim & Lobo. 2010) 19-(Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014) 20-(Boral 2014) 21-(LEED 2014); 22-(Steel Construction Information 2014) 23-(GBCA 2008; US Green Building Council 2011) 24-(LEED US Green Building Council 2005) 25-(Steel Construction Information 2014; Greenspec 2015) 26-(Ash Development Association of Australia 2013) 27-(US Green Building Council 2011) 28-(Geopolymer House 2011; Nath & Sarker 2014) 29- (Forest Stewardship Council 2010) 30-(Learning Legacy 2012; Benn, Dunphy & Griffiths 2014) 31-(Inhabitat 2014; Learning Legacy 2014; Steel Construction Information 2014) 32- (Ecospecifier Global 2016) 33 (CBA Concrete Block Association 2013) 34- (Onesteel 2016) 35- (DEE 2012); 36- (Chisholm 2011) 37- (BREEAM 2014b); 38-(Dowling 2010) 39-(UK Indemand 2014, 2015); 40-(BREEAM BRE 2014) 41-(Brick Industry Association 2016) 42- (CNN 2012) 43- (FSC 2015) 44-(Tam, Gao & Tam 2005) 45-(NSW Government 2010) 46- (Zeobond Group 2014) 47-(Geopolymer Institute 2014) 48-(Wellcamp 2014) | Table prepared by Author 286 Appendix D Table A.D.3: Bioclimatic conditions – current; from best practice with green tools (Green Star, LEED and BREEAM); from this research model; and from research and lab + Percentage carbon reductions. Bioclimatic Design Principles (BDP) Criteria Concrete from recycled aggregates Conditions with Green tools G.S., LEED, BREEAM In Australia, there are a number of G.S. and LEED 1-3 points 20-30% RA for manufactured and recycled aggregates structural purpose; BRE 25-50% in 20-40 MPa readily available in certain localities 1 no restriction, 100% non-structural 2, 18, 36 Concrete block from recycled 24% recycled content of an aggregate G.S., BRE, 40%; US 25% RA structural; 100%, or aggregate concrete block 8 no natural aggregates in non-structural 18,23,36 Brick from recycled Current level of recycled material G.S., 30%;16, 23; LEED 20%; BRE 11% ISO, up aggregates content in brick is 11% 14,41 to 10 points for 10% Recycled aggregate 14,16,36 Steel from average recycled Primary typically 10-15% of scrap steel, G.S. Mat-6, 60%; LEED 65-97.5%; BRE, Mat-6, Secondary 100% scrap based production 60%; -97.5% beams, plates; 65% bars; 66% steel content 25, 34 deck post-consumer recycled content 23,16,38 Reuse recycled and postG.S., 95% Joinery, 50% structural framing, Scaffolding, formwork, sheet piles, etc., consumer structural and nonroofing; LEED 75-100% existing wall, floor, 32, 34 London Olympic Stadium structural steel roof; BRE, Mat-6, 60% recycled content 3,5,23,24 Reduce material use in steel Some current green projects have G.S., Mat-6, 10-20% one point; LEED, reduced materials use in design 10-20% eliminating need for materials in the design stage; structural design 10-20% 23 BRE reduced, avoiding over-design 23,21,10,7,32 Reuse the recycled timber and FSC works in 80 countries, 24000 FSC G.S. 95% re-used, post-consumer; FSC certified chain of custody certificates are active in timber; up to 3 points; LEED, 50% FSC; BRE, 3 post-consumer FSC timber 107 countries23, points, post-consumer waste stream 22, 23, 32,24,29 In some countries materials such as G.S. Mat-5, 1 point, no natural aggregates are Roof tile from recycled tile concrete roof tiles, removed separated and used; LEED, from the waste, up to3.5 points, recycled44, 45 BRE, M03, from the waste stream 20,21,23,36 Thermal insulation from Thermal insulation is fully recyclable, i.e. G.S. 80% advised; LEED MR4 20%, ½ point, recycled content wool content,31 BRE 80%, 1 point, responsibly sourced 12.7,27,37 Portland cement replaced with Geopolymer has been used in structural, G.S. 60% In situ concrete; 40% precast 30% non-structural, e.g. GCI in Qld, stressed concrete; LEED, 30% structural; no limit Geopolymer based cement Wellcamp Airport 46,47,48 others, BRE, responsibly sourced cement 23,26,7 Reduce transportation by National Waste Policy Australia advice Green tools credit reusing and recycling up to 40% of materials, not directly credited; obtained reusing and recycled materials to reduce waste, re-use to reduce environmental impact 35 from30km radius of the site 2,15,35,37 Transportation by water or 15% of bricks are transported to LEED, Regional Materials, up to 2 points 14 tools rail not truck, Reduce advise localizing, using water and rail instead of distributor’s yard or jobsite by rail and transportation by localizing road2,15 85% by truck 19, 30 Carbon Emissions Reduction Current conditions, Implemented Six case studies Current Implementation Between -23 % to 57 % Examine the six case studies with Green Tool Between 17 to 32 % Conditions in this research Conditions in research and lab. Fully RA for non-structural purpose; 100% RA for non-structural; 80 % RA for structural purpose 6 Aggregate for concrete block fully from recycled aggregate 13 Reuse the recycled aggregate for brick, 67% 19 ADAA, ASA, UNSW, Standards Australia; 4, fully RA for non-structural; 30-75-80 % RA for structural;13,11 UK, USA, AUS; 11, fully RA for concrete block;13 US; UK, Reuse fully the recycled aggregate for brick, 6 points; 11, 17 Steel from 65-97.5% post-consumer recycled contents;22, 39 Steel from fully post-consumer recycled contents Use 40% recycled and postconsumer steel elements Steel products are re-usable, steel piles, hollow sections; gauge, purlins, rails32,.31 Integrative Design Process (IDP) Linear design; the London Olympics’ structure 1/10, 32, 42 60% of all timber products re-used, AUS; fully timber products re-used, post-consumer recycled timber; FSC post-consumer, recycled or are FSC certified timber certified timber43 US; UK; AUS,50% Roof tile from 50% Roof tile from recycled recycled aggregate RA; roof tiles are 21 aggregate 100% recoverable 21, 45 Thermal insulation from fully US; UK; Thermal insulation 100% from recycled waste 25 recycled waste; 25 Geopolymer based cement fully Geopolymer based cement fully replace replaces Portland cement arranged for with Portland cement, arranged for nonnon-structural, structural structural and structural;13, 28 Reuse has been considered in Transportation reduction by increasing material production and building reusing and recycling is considered in elements current study in UK;32 Transport the construction materials in UK has already examined in London Localizing has been considered Olympics; 30 Reduced materials use in structural design 10-20% The six case studies with Research Model Between 50 to 65 % UK Government has funded UKIndemand Center32 Proposes 80 % Sources: 1-(Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia 2015; Gonzalez-Fonteboa 2005) 2-(Green building Council of Australia GBCA 2008) 3-(Subasic 2016) 4-(Ash Development Association of Australia 2013; Low carbon living CRC 2015) 5-(Green Building Council of Australia 2012) 6-Chapter Seven 7-(US Green Building Council 2010) 8.(Concrete Block Association 2013) 9-(GBCA 2016) 10- (LEED 2016 ); 11-(Poon, Kou & Lam 2002; Concrete Block Association 2013) 13-(Uche 2008; PCA 2014) 14-(Brick Development Association 2009); 15-(LEED 2014) 16-(Kang and Kren 2007) 17-(Volz and Stovner 2010) 18-(Obla, Kim & Lobo. 2010) 19-(Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014) 20-(Boral 2014) 21-(LEED 2014); 22-(Steel Construction Information 2014) 23-(GBCA 2008; US Green Building Council 2011) 24-(LEED US Green Building Council 2005) 25-(Steel Construction Information 2014; Greenspec 2015) 26-(Ash Development Association of Australia 2013) 27-(US Green Building Council 2011) 28-(Geopolymer House 2011; Nath & Sarker 2014) 29- (Forest Stewardship Council 2010) 30(Learning Legacy 2012; Benn, Dunphy & Griffiths 2014) 31-(Ecospecifier Global 2016) 32-(Allwood et al. 2012; UK Indemand 2014, 2015) 34-(Learning Legacy 2012; Inhabitat 2014; Steel Construction Information 2014) 35-(DEE 2012) 36-(Chisholm 2011) 37- (BREEAM 2014b); 38-(Dowling 2010) 39-(Kang & Kren 2007) 41-(Brick Industry Association 2016) 42- (CNN 2012) 43- (FSC 2015) 44-(Tam, Gao & Tam 2005) 45-(NSW Government 2010) 46(Zeobond Group 2014) 47-(Geopolymer Institute 2014) 48-(Wellcamp 2014) | Table prepared by Author 287 Appendix D Table A.D.4: Bioclimatic criteria examined in general Australian floor, wall and roof construction systems using the research model and the Green Star rating tool A.1 Floor construction systems Bioclimatic criteria Concrete from recycled aggregates Study 80% RA for fixing posts in the ground 1 Green 20% RA for fixing posts in Star the ground 2 Concrete block and brick from recycled aggregate Brick from recycled aggregate A.3. Roof construction systems 80 % RA for concrete slab on ground 1 80 % RA for concrete slab on ground 1 20 % RA for fixing posts in the ground 2 20 % RA for fixing posts in the ground 2 Study - Concrete block wall from (67100%) RA 3 - Green Star - Concrete block wall from 20% RA 3 - Study Brick from 67% RA for posts Brick wall from 67% RA 4 Study - Use recycled bricks 60% 4 Green Star Steel from average recycled content A.2. Wall construction systems Use steel produced with 100% recycled content 8,13 Use steel produced with 100% recycled content 8,13 Use steel produced with 100% recycled content 8,13 Green Use steel produced with 90% Use steel produced with 90% Use steel produced with 90% Star recycled content 6,7 recycled content 6,7 recycled content 6,7 Reuse recycled and post-consumer structural and nonstructural steel Reduce material (steel) use in design 10-20% Reuse 40% recycled steel in Study structural and non-structural elements 31,32 Green Star Reuse 40% recycled steel in structural and non-structural elements 31,32 - Reuse 40% recycled steel in the structural and non-structural elements 31,32 - - Reduced 20% steel use in design 12, 14 Reduced 20% steel use in design 12, 14 Reduced 20% steel use in design 12, 14 Green Reduced 20% steel use in Star design, 15,16, 5, 6, 12 Reduced 20% steel use in design, 15,16, 5, 6, 12 Reduced 20% steel use in design, 15,16, 5, 6, 12 Study Reuse recycled timber Study and post-consumer FSC certified timber Use 100%, recycled timber or Use 100%, recycled timber or Use 100%, recycled timber or FSC certified timber, reuse 6, FSC certified timber, reuse 6, FSC certified timber, reuse 6, 17 17 17 Use 100%, recycled timber or Use 100%, recycled timber or Use 100%, recycled timber or Green FSC certified timber, reuse 6, FSC certified timber, reuse 6, FSC certified timber, reuse 6, 7, Star 7, 12, 18, 19 7, 12, 18, 19 12, 18, 19 Roof tile from recycled tiles Study - - Use 13% recycled tile, tiles with 45% recycled content 5, 20 Green Star - - - Thermal insulation Study from recycled content - Green Star - Replaced Portland cement with geopolymer cement Study Thermal insulation 100% from recycled content 8 - Thermal insulation 100% from recycled content 8 - Replace 100% of Portland Replace 100% of Portland Replace 100% of Portland cement with geopolymer 12, 21 cement with geopolymer 12, 21 cement with geopolymer 12, 21 Replace 60% of Portland Green cement with geopolymer 6 ,9, Star 22 Replace 60% of Portland cement with geopolymer 6 ,9, Replace 60% of Portland cement with geopolymer 6 ,9, 22 22 Sources: 1-(CCAA) 2015; Gonzalez-Fonteboa 2005) 2-(Green building Council of Australia 2008) 6-Chapter Seven 3-(Uche 2008; PCA 2014) 4-(Brick Development Association 2014; Tyrell & Goode 2014) 5-(LEED 2014) 6-(GBCA 2008; US Green Building Council 2011) 7-(LEED US Green Building Council 2005) 8-(Steel Construction.Information 2014; Greenspec 2015) 9-(Ash Development Association of Australia 2013) 10-(Ecospecifier Global 2016) 12-(Allwood et al. 2012; UK Indemand 2014), 2015) 13-(Inhabitat 2014; Steel Construction.Information 2014) 14-(CNN 2012) 15-(US Green Building Council 2010) 16-(LEED 2016 ) 17-(FSC 2015) 18-(Steel Construction Information 2014) 19-(FSC 2010) 20-(NSW Government 2010) 21(DEE 2012) 22-(US Green Building Council 2010) | (RA = Recycled Aggregate, PC = Portland cement, GC = Geopolymer Cement.| Table Prepared by Author, 288 Other Papers OTHER PAPERS Hyde, RA, Sattary, S, Sallam, I 2003, Green globe building design phase assessment: Pre-assessment tool, Tourism Queensland, Department of Architecture, University of Queensland. Sattary, S 2003, ‘A review of existing methodology for assessing sustainable construction practices’, paper presented to the 37th Australian and New Zealand Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA) Conference, University of Sydney, Australia. Sattary, S 2004, ‘Assessment of sustainable construction practices’, paper presented at the 38th Australian and New Zealand Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA) Conference, University of Tasmania, Australia. Sattary, S 2005, ‘Low impact construction: extension of Lawson’s method to evaluate the environmental impact of building during construction processes’, paper presented at the 39th Australian and New Zealand Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA) Conference. Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, 17–19 November 2005. Sattary, S 2006, ‘Assessment criteria for energy consumption during construction processes’, paper presented at the International Symposium & Exhibition on Sustainable Energy & Environment (ISESEE) Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Sattary, S 2008, ‘Criteria to assess the ecological footprint of building during construction processes, paper presented at the 42nd Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA), University of Newcastle Australia. Sattary, S 2009, ‘Low impact construction processes in ecosensitive construction sites’, paper presented at the Architectural Research Centers Consortium (ARCC) Annual Spring Research Conference, The University of Texas at San Antonio, 15-18 April 2009. 289

Log In

Sustainable construction: potential carbon emission reductions (PCER) in Australian construction systems through the use of bioclimatic design principles

Free related PDFsRelated papers

Free related PDFsRelated papers