Low- carbon design strategies for new residential buildings – lessons from architectural practice

ABSTRACT This study presents the environmental life cycle assessment of four low carbon design strategies applied in Danish, architectural practice. The subject of analysis is a set of five buildings erected within the same constrictions in terms of floor area, energy performance and construction costs. The tested design strategies were: use of recycled materials, design for extended durability of components, adaptable design, and design for reduction of operational energy demand. The results of the five buildings are compared with a reference building (i.e. a typical, Danish single-family dwelling). Results show that the recycling/upcycling strategy is the most effective in reducing the embodied carbon. The use of structural wood in the same design furthermore points to the use of wood as a viable low-carbon strategy. In combination, these two strategies result in an approximate 40% saving of life cycle embodied carbon compared to the reference. Using durable materials yields up to 30% lower embodied carbon compared to the reference, whereas a design for adaptability results in 17% lower embodied carbon. However, these results are sensitive to the scenarios made for the service lives of materials and the implemented disassembly solutions. In a life cycle carbon perspective, the emissions from energy use prove to be of importance, although depending on the modelling approaches of the energy mix. With the shrinking, global carbon budgets in mind, there is justified reason to holistically optimize the design of new buildings by integrating various design aspects addressing the whole life cycle of the building.

[1]  Reinout Heijungs,et al.  Methods for global sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment , 2017, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[2]  Morten Birkved,et al.  Upcycling and Design for Disassembly – LCA of buildings employing circular design strategies , 2019, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

[3]  Tove Malmqvist,et al.  Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multi-national quantitative and qualitative case studies , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[4]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA , 1998 .

[5]  Harpa Birgisdottir,et al.  Life cycle embodied and operational energy use in a typical, new Danish single-family house , 2016 .

[6]  Helge Brattebø,et al.  Comparative emission analysis of low-energy and zero-emission buildings , 2018 .

[7]  Giovanni Andrea Blengini,et al.  The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings , 2010 .

[8]  Rafael Horn,et al.  Ökobau.dat 3.0–Quo Vadis? , 2018, Buildings.

[9]  Thomas Lützkendorf,et al.  Assessing the environmental performance of buildings: trends, lessons and tensions , 2018 .

[10]  Buick Davison,et al.  Developing an LCA methodology to account for the environmental benefits of design for deconstruction , 2012 .

[11]  Matthias Haase,et al.  Life cycle emissions analysis of two nZEB concepts , 2015 .

[12]  Kirsten Gram-Hanssen,et al.  Energy performance gaps: promises, people, practices , 2018 .

[13]  Anders Hammer Strømman,et al.  Climate impacts of bioenergy: Inclusion of carbon cycle and albedo dynamics in life cycle impact assessment , 2012 .

[14]  I. Andresen,et al.  Lessons learnt from embodied GHG emission calculations in zero emission buildings (ZEBs) from the Norwegian ZEB research centre , 2018 .

[15]  Behzad Sodagar,et al.  The carbon-reduction potential of straw-bale housing , 2011 .

[16]  Anne Grete Hestnes,et al.  Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article , 2007 .

[17]  Mathilde Landgren,et al.  Integrated design processes – a mapping of guidelines with Danish conventional ‘silo’ design practice as the reference point , 2018, Architectural Engineering and Design Management.

[18]  E. Hertwich,et al.  CO2 emissions from biomass combustion for bioenergy: atmospheric decay and contribution to global warming , 2011 .

[19]  Thomas Lützkendorf,et al.  Net-zero buildings: incorporating embodied impacts , 2015 .

[20]  Annie Levasseur,et al.  Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[21]  Jamie Meil,et al.  Prospects for carbon-neutral housing: the influence of greater wood use on the carbon footprint of a single-family residence , 2009 .

[22]  Philippe Roux,et al.  How to conduct a proper sensitivity analysis in life cycle assessment: taking into account correlations within LCI data and interactions within the LCA calculation model. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[23]  M. Birkved,et al.  Aalborg Universitet Life-cycle assessment of a Danish office building designed for disassembly , 2018 .

[24]  Andrea Campioli,et al.  LCA benchmarks for residential buildings in Northern Italy and Denmark – learnings from comparing two different contexts , 2019, Building Research & Information.

[25]  C. Hill,et al.  Comparative assessment for biogenic carbon accounting methods in carbon footprint of products: a review study for construction materials based on forest products , 2017 .

[26]  Seppo Junnila,et al.  A scenario analysis of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of a new residential area , 2012 .

[27]  Andreas Krause,et al.  Life cycle assessment of wood-plastic composites: Analysing alternative materials and identifying an environmental sound end-of-life option , 2017 .

[28]  Harpa Birgisdottir,et al.  Development of LCAbyg: A National Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Buildings in Denmark , 2019, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

[29]  R. Frischknecht,et al.  Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation , 2020 .

[30]  Alice Moncaster,et al.  Design and construction strategies for reducing embodied impacts from buildings – Case study analysis , 2018 .

[31]  Peter Fantke,et al.  Uncertainty Management and Sensitivity Analysis , 2018 .