Embodied Energy and CO 2 Analyses of Mud-brick and Cement-block Houses

In building projects, the extraction of vast quantities of materials is too common. The extraction of materials and the erection of buildings consume embodied energy and emit carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) that impact negatively on the environment. Therefore it is necessary to consider embodied energy and CO 2 amongst other factors in selecting building materials for use in building projects. In most developing countries, building environmental performance analysis has yet to gain interest from the construction community. However, with recent increase in sustainability awareness, both developed and developing nations have engaged in efforts to tackle this challenge. Embodied energy and CO 2 are among the leading parameters in assessing environmental building performance. In Cameroon, studies about the assessment of embodied energy and CO 2 of building projects are scarce. Hence, professionals find it difficult to make alternative choices for building materials to use in their different building projects. This study uses a detailed process analysis approach supported by two popular housing types in Cameroon (mud-brick and cement-block houses) to assess the embodied energy and CO 2 impacts from building materials. The emerging Building Information Modelling (BIM) tool was used to validate the computational results of the process analysis method. The findings revealed the embodied energy and CO 2 for the mud-brick houses are 137934.91 MJ (2007.8 MJ/m 2 ) and 15665.56 Kg CO 2 (228.03 Kg CO 2 /m 2 ); the cement-block houses are 292326.81 MJ (3065.51 MJ/m 2 ) and 37829.19 Kg CO 2 (396.7 Kg CO 2 /m 2 ) respectively. Thus, the cement-block house expends at least 1.5 times more embodied energy and emits at least 1.7 times more embodied CO 2 than mud-brick house. Although these findings cannot be generalized, they nonetheless indicate the importance of considering embodied energy and CO 2 in making alternative choices for use in different building projects.

[1]  B. V. Venkatarama Reddy,et al.  Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies , 2003 .

[2]  Hugo Hens,et al.  Life cycle inventory of buildings: A calculation method , 2010 .

[3]  Catarina Thormark,et al.  The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling potential of a building , 2006 .

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

[5]  Sarel Lavy,et al.  Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review , 2010 .

[6]  G. N. Tiwari,et al.  Thermal performance and embodied energy analysis of a passive house – Case study of vault roof mud-house in India , 2009 .

[7]  Jamie Goggins,et al.  The assessment of embodied energy in typical reinforced concrete building structures in Ireland , 2010 .

[8]  Justo Garcia Navarro,et al.  Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact , 2006 .

[9]  Dieter Holm,et al.  Energy impact analysis of building construction as applied to South Africa , 1999 .

[10]  D. ürge-Vorsatz,et al.  Potentials and costs of carbon dioxide mitigation in the world's buildings , 2008 .

[11]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Embodied energy in buildings : wood versus concrete - reply to Börjesson and Gustavsson , 2002 .

[12]  P. Börjesson,et al.  Greenhouse gas balances in building construction : wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives , 2000 .

[13]  Albert Noumowe,et al.  Thermo physical characteristics of economical building materials , 2004 .

[14]  Peter E.D. Love,et al.  AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING WASTE MINIMISATION AND USE OF RECYCLED MATERIALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS , 2003 .