Abstract
The embodied carbon of building materials and the energy consumed during construction have a significant impact on the environmental credentials of buildings. The structural systems of a building present opportunities to reduce environmental emissions and energy. In this regard, mass timber materials have considerable potential as sustainable materials over other alternatives such as steel and concrete. The aim of this investigation was to compare the environment impact, energy consumption, and life cycle cost (LCC) of different wood-based materials in identical single-story residential buildings. The materials compared are laminated veneer lumber (LVL) and glued laminated timber (GLT). GLT has less global warming potential (GWP), ozone layer depletion (OLD), and land use (LU), respectively, by 29%, 37%, and 35% than LVL. Conversely, LVL generally has lower terrestrial acidification potential (TAP), human toxicity potential (HTP), and fossil depletion potential (FDP), respectively, by 30%, 17%, and 27%. The comparative outcomes revealed that using LVL reduces embodied energy by 41%. To identify which of these materials is the best alternative, various environmental categories, embodied energy, and cost criteria require further analysis. Therefore, the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method has been applied to enable robust decision-making. The outcome showed that LVL manufacturing using softwood presents the most sustainable choice. These research findings contribute to the body of knowledge about the use of mass timber in construction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Abolghassem Tehrani M, Froese TM (2017) A comparative life cycle assessment of tall buildings with alternative structural systems: wood vs. concrete, Vancouver
Akasah ZA, Rum NAM (2011) Implementing life cycle costing in Malaysia construction industry: a review. Proceeding of International Building and Infrastructure Conference, Penang, 7–8 June 2011
Andersen JH, Rasmussen NL, Ryberg MW (2022) Comparative life cycle assessment of cross laminated timber building and concrete building with special focus on biogenic carbon. Energy and Build 254:111604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111604
Balasbaneh AT, Bin Marsono AK (2017b) Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from residential sector by proposing new building structures in hot and humid climatic conditions. Build Environ 124:357–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.025
Balasbaneh AT, Sher W (2021) Comparative sustainability evaluation of two engineered wood-based construction materials: life cycle analysis of CLT versus GLT. Build Environ 204(July):108112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108112
Balasbaneh AT, Marsono AKB, Khaleghi SJ (2018a) Sustainability choice of different hybrid timber structure for low medium cost single-story residential building: environmental, economic and social assessment. J Build Eng 20:235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.006
Balasbaneh AT, Bin Marsono AK, Kasra Kermanshahi E (2018b) Balancing of life cycle carbon and cost appraisal on alternative wall and roof design verification for residential building. Constr Innov 18(3):274–300. https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-03-2017-0024
Balasbaneh AT, Bin Marsono AK, Khaleghi SJ (2018) Sustainability choice of different hybrid timber structure for low medium cost single-story residential building: environmental, economic and social assessment. J Build Eng 20(February):235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.006
Balasbaneh AT, Yeoh D, Zainal Abidin AR (2020) Life cycle sustainability assessment of window renovations in schools against noise pollution in tropical climates. J Build Eng 32(September):101784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101784
Balasbaneh AT, & Bin Marsono AK (2017a). Proposing of new building scheme and composite towards global warming mitigation for Malaysia. Int J Sustain Eng 10(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017a.1293184
Bowers T, Puettmann ME, Ganguly I, Eastin I (2017) Cradle-to-gate life-cycle impact analysis of glued-laminated (glulam) timber: environmental impacts from glulam produced in the US pacific northwest and southeast. For Prod J 67(5–6):368–380. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-17-00008
Brambilla A, Salvalai G, Imperadori M, Sesana MM (2018) Nearly zero energy building renovation: from energy efficiency to environmental efficiency, a pilot case study. Energy Build 166:271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.02.002
Breyer D, Fridley K, Jr, P, Cobeen K (2014) Design of wood structures-ASD/LRFD. https://books.google.com/books?id=qOdbBAAAQBAJ&pgis=1; https://www.amazon.com/Design-Wood-Structures-ASD-Donald-Breyer/dp/0071745602. Accessed 1 Apr 2021
Buchanan A, Deam B, Fragiacomo M, Pampanin S, Palermo A (2008) Multi-storey prestressed timber buildings in New Zealand. Struct Eng Int: J Int Assoc Bridge Struct Eng (IABSE) 18(2):166–173. https://doi.org/10.2749/101686608784218635
Chen J, Shi Q, Zhang W (2022) Structural path and sensitivity analysis of the CO2 emissions in the construction industry. Environ Impact Assessment Rev 92(October 2020):106679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106679
Chen CX, Pierobon F, Jones S, Maples I, Gong Y, & Ganguly I (2022b). Comparative life cycle assessment of mass timber and concrete residential buildings: a case study in China. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010144
Crawford R, Stephan A (2019) Environmental performance in construction a database of embodied environmental flow coefficients. The University of Melbourne, Melbourne
Dixit MK (2017) Life cycle embodied energy analysis of residential buildings: a review of literature to investigate embodied energy parameters. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79(May):390–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.051
Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2014) Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems. Energy and Buildings 82:194–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.034
Doka G (2003) Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services ecoinvent report No.13. Swiss entre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf
European Committee for Standardization (2011) CEN/TC 350, EN 15978:2011 UNE-EN 15978:2011 - Sustainability of construction works - assessment of environmental performance of buildings - calculation method. International Standard, Brussels
Forterra (2018) Mass timber: the innovative future of our built environment. https://forterra.org/about/who-we-are/. Accessed 12 May 2021
Frischknecht R, Rebitzer G (2005) The ecoinvent database system: a comprehensive web-based LCA database. J Clean Prod 13(13–14):1337–1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.05.002
Gustavsson L, Pingoud K, Sathre R (2006) Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution: comparing concrete- and wood-framed buildings. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 11(3):667–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-7207-1
Gustavsson L, Joelsson A, Sathre R (2010) Life cycle primary energy use and carbon emission of an eight-storey wood-framed apartment building. Energy Build 42(2):230–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.08.018
Head M, Levasseur A, Beauregard R, Margni M (2020) Dynamic greenhouse gas life cycle inventory and impact profiles of wood used in Canadian buildings. Build Environ 173(February):106751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106751
Henkel H-JK (2005) Editorial The revision of ISO standards 14040–3. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):1
Hernandez P, Oregi X, Longo S, Cellura M (2019) Life-cycle assessment of buildings. In: Handbook of Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812817-6.00010-3
Hill CAS, Dibdiakova J (2016) The environmental impact of wood compared to other building materials. Int Wood Prod J 7(4):215–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/20426445.2016.1190166
Horváth SE, Szalay Z (2012) Decision-making case study for retrofit of high-rise concrete buildings based on life cycle assessment scenarios. International Symposium on Life Cycle Assessment and Construction July 10–12. Nantes France 1:116–124
Ip K, Miller A (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of hemp-lime wall constructions in the UK. Resour Conserv Recycl 69:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.09.001
ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental managemente life cycle assessment- principles and framework, 2nd edn. International Standards Organisation (ISO 14040), Switzerland
Jayalath A, Navaratnam S, Ngo T, Mendis P, Hewson N, Aye L (2020) Life cycle performance of cross laminated timber mid-rise residential buildings in Australia. Energy Build 223:110091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110091
JUBM & Arcadis Construction Cost Handbook, MALAYSIA (2021)JUBM Sdn Bhd 197601001824 (27638-X), https://www.arcadis.com/en/knowledge-hub/perspectives/asia/research-and-publications/construction-cost-handbook. Accessed 10 May 2021
Konnerth J, Kluge M, Schweizer G, Miljković M, Gindl-Altmutter W (2016) Survey of selected adhesive bonding properties of nine European softwood and hardwood species. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 74(6):809–819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-016-1087-1
Kremer PD, Symmons MA (2015) Mass timber construction as an alternative to concrete and steel in the Australia building industry: a PESTEL evaluation of the potential. Int Wood Prod J 6(3):138–147. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042645315Y.0000000010
Laguarda Mallo MF, Espinoza O (2015) Awareness, perceptions and willingness to adopt cross-laminated timber by the architecture community in the United States. J Clean Prod 94:198–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.090
Lipušček I, Bohanec M, Oblak L, Stirn LZ (2010) A multi-criteria decision-making model for classifying wood products with respect to their impact on environment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:359–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0157-6
Liu Y, Guo H, Sun C, Chang WS (2016) Assessing cross laminated timber (CLT) as an alternative material for mid-rise residential buildings in cold regions in China-a life-cycle assessment approach. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101047
Lu HR, El Hanandeh A (2019) Energy conversion vs structural products: a novel multi-objective multi-period linear optimisation with application to the Australian hardwood plantation thinned logs. J Clean Prod 224:614–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.222
Lu HR, El Hanandeh A, Gilbert BP (2017a) A comparative life cycle study of alternative materials for Australian multi-storey apartment building frame constructions: environmental and economic perspective. J Clean Prod 166:458–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.065
Lu HR, El Hanandeh A, Gilbert B, Bailleres H (2017b) A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of alternative material for Australian building construction. MATEC Web Conf 120:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201712002013
Luthin A, Backes JG, Traverso M (2021) A framework to identify environmental-economic trade-offs by combining life cycle assessment and life cycle costing – a case study of aluminium production. J Clean Prod 321(June):128902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128902
Malça J, Freire F (2006) Renewability and life-cycle energy efficiency of bioethanol and bio-ethyl tertiary butyl ether (bioETBE): assessing the implications of allocation. Energy 31(15):3362–3380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.03.013
Mallo MFL, Espinoza O (2015) Awareness, perceptions and willingness to adopt cross-laminated timber by the architecture community in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 94:198e210
Mithraratne N, Vale B (2004) Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses. Build Environ 39(4):83–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.09.008
Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2009) Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr Build Mater 23(1):28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.11.012
Peñaloza D, Norén J, & Eriksson P (2013) Life cycle assessment of different building systems: the Wälludden case study. Wood Technology SP Report 2013:07 Rev. 2013-05-08. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:962737/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2021
Pierobon F, Huang M, Simonen K, & Ganguly I (2019). Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: an LCA based comparative case study in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. J Build Eng 26(July). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100862
Ramage MH, Burridge H, Busse-Wicher M, Fereday G, Reynolds T, Shah DU, Wu G, Yu L, Fleming P, Densley-Tingley D, Allwood J, Dupree P, Linden PF, Scherman O (2017) The wood from the trees: the use of timber in construction. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 68(September 2016):333–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.107
Rashid AFA, Idris J, & Yusoff S (2017). Environmental impact analysis on residential building in Malaysia using life cycle assessment. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030329
Raymond WWM (n.d.) Application of formwork for high rise and complex building structures- Hongkong cases. Division of building science & technology, City University of Hongkong, Hongkong, pp 446-451
Risse M, Weber-Blaschke G, Richter K (2019) Eco-efficiency analysis of recycling recovered solid wood from construction into laminated timber products. Sci Total Environ 661:107–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.01.117
Robertson AB, Lam FCF, & Cole RJ (2012). A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of mid-rise office building construction alternatives: laminated timber or reinforced concrete. 245–270. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2030245
Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Services Sci 1:83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
Scheepens AE, Vogtländer JG, Brezet JC (2016) Two life cycle assessment (LCA) based methods to analyse and design complex (regional) circular economy systems. Case: making water tourism more sustainable. J Clean Prod 114:257–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.075
Taffese WZ, Abegaz KA (2019) Embodied energy and CO2 emissions of widely used building materials: the Ethiopian context. Buildings 9(6):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/BUILDINGS9060136
Tavares V, Lacerda N, Freire F (2019) Embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of a prefabricated modular house: the “Moby” case study. J Clean Prod 212:1044–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.028
Teh SH, Wiedmann T, Schinabeck J, Moore S (2017) Replacement scenarios for construction materials based on economy-wide hybrid LCA. Procedia Engineering 180:179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.177
Tellnes LGF, Eide S (2006) Assessment of carbon footprint of laminated veneer lumber elements in a six story housing – comparison to a steel and concrete solution. LCA Sustain Mater Technol Beam 2006:817–824
Turskis Z, Zavadskas EK, Peldschus F (2009) Multi-criteria optimization system for decision making in construction design and management. Engineering Economics 1(61):7–17. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.61.1.11571
Wang L, Toppinen A, Juslin H (2014) Use of wood in green building: a study of expert perspectives from the UK. J Clean Prod 65:350–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.023
Wood: Sustainable Building Solutions (2012) Sustainable buildings, sustainable future. https://www.apawood.org/publication-search?q=f305&tid=1. Accessed 20 Apr 2021
Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Antucheviciene J, Zakarevicius A (2012) Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika Ir Elektrotechnika 122(6):3–6. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810
Zhang C, Lee G, Lam F (2018) Study of massive timber walls based on NLT and post laminated LVL, Forestry Innovation Investment 1130 W Pender St, Vancouver BC V6E 4A4 T, 604, 1–35
Zhang, X. Carbon emissions measurement methods and comparative studies on green building structural system. Master’s thesis, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China (in Chinese)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection and software analysis were performed by Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh, Willy Sher, David Yeoh, and Mohd Norazam Yasin. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh; all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. As corresponding author, I confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved for submission by all the authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Philippe Loubet
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Balasbaneh, A.T., Sher, W., Yeoh, D. et al. Economic and environmental life cycle perspectives on two engineered wood products: comparison of LVL and GLT construction materials. Environ Sci Pollut Res 30, 26964–26981 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24079-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24079-1