A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Comparing flexible and conventional monolithic building design: Life cycle environmental impact and potential for material circulation
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-9226
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1149-5961
Abstract Due to severe sustainability problems caused by the built environment, calls for adopting circular economy principles in building design, such as flexibility and reversibility, are increasing. However, there is still a lack of quantitative studies on the corresponding environmental benefits in this regard. In the present study, a life cycle assessment of a multi-storey residential reference building is carried out, comparing a flexible, reversible building design using a load-bearing steel structure and wooden ceiling elements to a conventional, monolithic design based on reinforced concrete. The assessment is carried out on a whole building level, including construction, operation, maintenance, and the end-of-life phase. Both building designs show similar results for a regular life cycle of 60 years without major refurbishment (13 and 14.5 kg CO2-eq/m2 per operational year). When longer building lifetimes are considered, the environmental impact of the reference building per operational year decreases significantly. In this context, flexible building design is advantageous as it facilitates the refurbishment of buildings, while monolithic building design often leads to premature demolition due to low adaptability. Further advantages of reversible building design include the increased potential of materials to be recirculated at the end-of-life stage of a building and in the potential reuse of structural elements. This study shows that 14% of the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of the flexible building can be avoided if the foundation, load-bearing structure and ceiling elements are kept in place for a subsequent building. Such direct reuse leads to a substantially higher environmental value retention than recycling of the same materials.
Highlights In depth comparison of the environmental performance of flexible and monolithic building designs. Whole building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) and material flow analysis for a specific case study. Extending building lifetime from 60 to 100 years reduces total greenhouse gas emissions per operational year by 19%. Flexible building design shows higher material recycling rate after dismantling than monolithic design. Direct reuse of structural elements in the flexible building can save of up to 14% of embodied greenhouse gas emissions.
Comparing flexible and conventional monolithic building design: Life cycle environmental impact and potential for material circulation
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-9226
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1149-5961
Abstract Due to severe sustainability problems caused by the built environment, calls for adopting circular economy principles in building design, such as flexibility and reversibility, are increasing. However, there is still a lack of quantitative studies on the corresponding environmental benefits in this regard. In the present study, a life cycle assessment of a multi-storey residential reference building is carried out, comparing a flexible, reversible building design using a load-bearing steel structure and wooden ceiling elements to a conventional, monolithic design based on reinforced concrete. The assessment is carried out on a whole building level, including construction, operation, maintenance, and the end-of-life phase. Both building designs show similar results for a regular life cycle of 60 years without major refurbishment (13 and 14.5 kg CO2-eq/m2 per operational year). When longer building lifetimes are considered, the environmental impact of the reference building per operational year decreases significantly. In this context, flexible building design is advantageous as it facilitates the refurbishment of buildings, while monolithic building design often leads to premature demolition due to low adaptability. Further advantages of reversible building design include the increased potential of materials to be recirculated at the end-of-life stage of a building and in the potential reuse of structural elements. This study shows that 14% of the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of the flexible building can be avoided if the foundation, load-bearing structure and ceiling elements are kept in place for a subsequent building. Such direct reuse leads to a substantially higher environmental value retention than recycling of the same materials.
Highlights In depth comparison of the environmental performance of flexible and monolithic building designs. Whole building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) and material flow analysis for a specific case study. Extending building lifetime from 60 to 100 years reduces total greenhouse gas emissions per operational year by 19%. Flexible building design shows higher material recycling rate after dismantling than monolithic design. Direct reuse of structural elements in the flexible building can save of up to 14% of embodied greenhouse gas emissions.
Comparing flexible and conventional monolithic building design: Life cycle environmental impact and potential for material circulation
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-9226
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1149-5961
Abstract Due to severe sustainability problems caused by the built environment, calls for adopting circular economy principles in building design, such as flexibility and reversibility, are increasing. However, there is still a lack of quantitative studies on the corresponding environmental benefits in this regard. In the present study, a life cycle assessment of a multi-storey residential reference building is carried out, comparing a flexible, reversible building design using a load-bearing steel structure and wooden ceiling elements to a conventional, monolithic design based on reinforced concrete. The assessment is carried out on a whole building level, including construction, operation, maintenance, and the end-of-life phase. Both building designs show similar results for a regular life cycle of 60 years without major refurbishment (13 and 14.5 kg CO2-eq/m2 per operational year). When longer building lifetimes are considered, the environmental impact of the reference building per operational year decreases significantly. In this context, flexible building design is advantageous as it facilitates the refurbishment of buildings, while monolithic building design often leads to premature demolition due to low adaptability. Further advantages of reversible building design include the increased potential of materials to be recirculated at the end-of-life stage of a building and in the potential reuse of structural elements. This study shows that 14% of the embodied greenhouse gas emissions of the flexible building can be avoided if the foundation, load-bearing structure and ceiling elements are kept in place for a subsequent building. Such direct reuse leads to a substantially higher environmental value retention than recycling of the same materials.
Highlights In depth comparison of the environmental performance of flexible and monolithic building designs. Whole building life cycle assessment (WBLCA) and material flow analysis for a specific case study. Extending building lifetime from 60 to 100 years reduces total greenhouse gas emissions per operational year by 19%. Flexible building design shows higher material recycling rate after dismantling than monolithic design. Direct reuse of structural elements in the flexible building can save of up to 14% of embodied greenhouse gas emissions.
Comparing flexible and conventional monolithic building design: Life cycle environmental impact and potential for material circulation
Kröhnert, Hanna (author) / Itten, René (author) / Stucki, Matthias (author)
Building and Environment ; 222
2022-07-12
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
A Life-cycle Environmental Impact of Building Assessment System: BEPAS
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2004