Comparative Study on Life-Cycle Assessment and Carbon Footprint of Hybrid, Concrete and Timber Apartment Buildings in Finland

Roni Rinne, Hüseyin Emre Ilgın and Markku Karjalainen
Additional contact information
Roni Rinne: Faculty of Built Environment, School of Architecture, Tampere University, P.O. Box 600, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland
Hüseyin Emre Ilgın: Faculty of Built Environment, School of Architecture, Tampere University, P.O. Box 600, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland
Markku Karjalainen: Faculty of Built Environment, School of Architecture, Tampere University, P.O. Box 600, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 2, 1-24

Abstract: To date, in the literature, there has been no study on the comparison of hybrid (timber and concrete) buildings with counterparts made of timber and concrete as the most common construction materials, in terms of the life cycle assessment (LCA) and the carbon footprint. This paper examines the environmental impacts of a five-story hybrid apartment building compared to timber and reinforced concrete counterparts in whole-building life-cycle assessment using the software tool, One Click LCA, for the estimation of environmental impacts from building materials of assemblies, construction, and building end-of-life treatment of 50 years in Finland. Following EN 15978, stages of product and construction (A1–A5), use (B1–B6), end-of-life (C1–C4), and beyond the building life cycle (D) were assessed. The main findings highlighted are as following: (1) for A1–A3, the timber apartment had the smallest carbon footprint (28% less than the hybrid apartment); (2) in A4, the timber apartment had a much smaller carbon footprint (55% less than the hybrid apartment), and the hybrid apartment had a smaller carbon footprint (19%) than the concrete apartment; (3) for B1–B5, the carbon footprint of the timber apartment was larger (>20%); (4) in C1–C4, the carbon footprint of the concrete apartment had the lowest emissions (35,061 kg CO 2 -e), and the timber apartment had the highest (44,627 kg CO 2 -e), but in D, timber became the most advantageous material; (5) the share of life-cycle emissions from building services was very significant. Considering the environmental performance of hybrid construction as well as its other advantages over timber, wood-based hybrid solutions can lead to more rational use of wood, encouraging the development of more efficient buildings. In the long run, this will result in a higher proportion of wood in buildings, which will be beneficial for living conditions, the environment, and the society in general.

Keywords: comparative study; life-cycle assessment (LCA); carbon footprint; hybrid; concrete; timber; apartment building; Finland (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/2/774/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/2/774/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:2:p:774-:d:722126

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().