Elsevier

Energy and Buildings

Volume 216, 1 June 2020, 109960
Energy and Buildings

Wood consumption and fixations of carbon dioxide and carbon from timber housing techniques: A Brazilian panorama

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109960Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper evaluated lignocellulosic biomass volume, in net and gross forms, consumed by Brazilian wood-based housing producers by building technique, as well as net volumes of fixed carbon and carbon dioxide by built area. Net volumetric values of consumed wood per available technique were obtained for single-story house with 100 m2 of built area, whose data collection was supported by face-to-face interviews with Brazilian producers. Gross volumes were obtained according to wood machining yield described in literature. Determinations of fixed carbon and carbon dioxide were verified by means of net volumes per built area, being calculated from data collected in the interviews. In wood consumption for this standard 100 m2 house, most of construction techniques revealed average net volumes from 8 to 15 m3 and gross volumes from 15 to 24 m3 and from 13 to 21 m3, respectively, for 30% and 55% yields. In net volumes for 100 m2 house, the lowest wood consumption was 2 m3 (or 0.02 m3 per m2 of built area) obtained by two versions of nailed clapboard technique, while the highest amount of wood consumed was 34 m3 (0.34 m3/m2) for modular technique in cross-laminated timber. As regards carbon fixation, contemporary techniques mostly based on eucalypt and pine species ranged from 30 to 40 kgC/m2, while this range was from 35 to 55 kgC/m2 for traditional techniques largely made with natives. For native woods, the lowest carbon fixation was obtained by stick with masonry technique with paricá (12 kgC/m2), and the highest value was observed in log-home technique using sapucaia (92 kgC/m2). In exotics, modular for construction site with loblolly pine presented the lowest fixation (19 kgC/m2), and the possibility of modular technique in cross-laminated timber with blue spotted gum had the highest level (107 kgC/m2). High wood consumptions were influenced by obsolete production technologies and robust techniques, evincing expressive fixations.

Introduction

The interest in wood as building material is experiencing a renaissance, a development spurred by the concern about the global climate and the limit of natural resources [1]. The United Kingdom lives the resurgence of timber houses, due to cost benefits, speed of build and the overwhelming environmental and quality advantages, which have resulted in a faster rate of growth than for masonry built homes [2].

But, this scenario is still restricted to some developed countries, especially to those with consolidated forest and timber chains. De Araujo et al. [3] described that United States, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, Sweden and France developed technical documents about timber-based housing constructions, emphasizing the popularity of this topic.

Other example is seen in the current race for tallest residential timber-based buildings, which according to Gosselin et al. [4], has also included developed countries such as Germany, Canada, Austria, United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Norway, Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, Ryall [5] mentioned that Japan announced new plans to run for this way, whose aim is to create an environment-friendly city of wooden high-rise buildings.

In Amazon carbon cycle, Fauset et al. [6] stated that the contribution of each species makes to biomass stocks and wood production depends not only on its abundance, but also on the functional properties of the individual trees of the species. As they grow, Buchanan [7] highlighted that trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the photosynthesis process, with the help of solar energy, whose absorbed carbon by new forests can be used to offset emissions of carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels.

There is no doubt that timber utilization is indispensable to reduce environmental impacts caused by carbon dioxide [8,9]. Timber, cork and other wood products are able to equalize these emissions that rise from their use through the photosynthesis work [10]. Maintaining species that stock carbon efficiently is essential to keep a positive carbon balance [11].

Long-living wood products can contribute to the mitigation of climate change because they act as a carbon pool during their service life, as they withdraw carbon dioxide from its natural cycle [12]. Global carbon cycle can significantly be improved through less burning of fossil fuels, stopping deforestation, forest conservation by wood production in plantation, afforestation on soils without recent native forests, and wood uses in durable goods [13].

Several studies about lignocellulosic materials have directed their approaches to carbon cycle in trees [6], environmental and economic assessment of bamboo [9], ecological footprint of traditional constructions [10], carbon stocks in native trees [11], carbon pool and substitution effects through the increased use of wood [12], carbon storage in timber products [13], carbon emission reduction by use of wood products [14], carbon cycle in wooden products [15], air carbon emissions of wood-based materials [16], wood utilization for construction and their effects on carbon dioxide emissions [17], carbon dynamics of wood products [18,19], life-cycle and environmental performance of renewable materials for construction [20], wood consumption and production environmental parameters [21], environmental and economic impacts of wood products and alternative materials [22], energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions over the construction life cycle [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], energy and carbon dioxide balances in building materials [8,28], environmental advantages of wood for sustainable buildings [29], protocols of carbon and wood products [30], carbon implications of end-of-life management of building materials [31], climate implications of wood utilization [32], energy consumption in wood drying for construction [33], improvement of energy efficiency in building envelope using timbered prefabricated building systems [34], carbon-neutral housing through wood utilization [35], dynamics of carbon stocks in residential housing [36], carbon sequestration in wooden products [37], [38], embodied energy and carbon footprint in roundwood [39], environmental perceptions of construction professionals [40], carbon storage and timber production from different ecosystem services [41], carbon footprint of timber constructions [42], population opinions about lower carbon constructions [43], development of lower carbon construction systems from solid wood panels [44], carbon efficiency in governance and standardization [45], carbon footprint of building products [46], emission predictions of low-carbon building processes [47], reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and embodied energy through wood utilization [48], carbon sequestration of forest products and wood panels [49], product life cycle of manufactured houses [50], forestry and wood products industries’ impact on the carbon balance [51], [52], [53], mitigation impacts of increased use of softwoods [54], and others.

Thereupon, Khasreen et al. [55] have identified that more than 25 calculation tools and databases for environmental impact measuring in the life cycle design of any product. At least twelve calculation methodologies could be used to size low-carbon constructions [56]. But, all these methods are aimed at the European and North American markets, which only contemplate some of wooden techniques such as woodframe, post-and-beam, modular in cross-laminated timber, etc. Other timber housing techniques identified by De Araujo et al. [57] were not considered in these estimations based on local markets.

As none of these aforementioned studies referred exclusively to estimation of carbon fixed in the lignocellulosic biomass from building components and parts for each available timber housing technique, current literature still does not share specific comparisons among the several construction examples produced with wood-based products and engineered composites. Also, due to data lacking on timber consumption for each wooden housing technique and respective fixed carbon masses, further studies are still required within this field.

This study aims to evaluate the lignocellulosic biomass volume consumed by wooden housing technique in net and gross possibilities, as well as fixed amounts of carbon and carbon dioxide per built area in each studied construction example. Thereby, the following hypotheses were identified: half of wooden housing techniques concentrate similar net volumes and fixed amounts of carbon and carbon dioxide; and, log-home and modular in cross-laminated timber panel constructions have higher indexes of carbon fixation.

Section snippets

Considered materials

The main materials used in this study followed strictly the wide research about timber housing production sector produced by De Araujo [58], which included studied companies, bibliographic material (scientific, corporate and technical documents), and the proposed questionnaire to be applied in the sectoral survey.

Sectoral population: definitions and considerations

Topics about Brazilian timber housing production sector are not well explored, considering that only two studies tried to share some limited information. The lack of any professional

Sampling

After data prospection, according to De Araujo [58] and De Araujo et al. [60], around 210 timber housing producers belong to respective production sector in Brazil, and 107 companies were sampled through interviewing process for wide research to its industrial characterization. Therefore, about 50.95% of whole sector was evaluated, whose sampled companies originated from six states, that is, Distrito Federal, São Paulo, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul, and Santa Catarina. The margin of

Conclusions

Most timber housing techniques present similar net consumptions, ranging from 8 to 15 m3 of lignocellulosic materials consumed for a single-storey house with 100 m2 of built area. In contrast, log-home and CLT-based modular showed average volumes 20% to 55% higher, respectively. Regarding the gross volumes of consumed wood, which also included wastes generated in production stages, consumptions ranged from an average of 15 to 24 m3 and from 13 to 21 m3, respectively, for yields of 30% and 55%.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Victor De Araujo: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Juliano Vasconcelos: Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation. Juliana Cortez-Barbosa: Formal analysis, Visualization. Elen Morales: Formal analysis, Validation, Visualization. André Christoforo: Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Maristela Gava: Conceptualization, Formal analysis,

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References (98)

  • J. Salazar et al.

    Prospects for carbon-neutral housing: the influence of greater wood use on the carbon footprint of a single-family residence

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2009)
  • F. Hamilton-MacLaren et al.

    Public opinions on alternative lower carbon wall construction techniques for UK housing

    Habitat Int.

    (2013)
  • S. Lehmann

    Low carbon construction systems using prefabricated engineered solid wood panels for urban infill to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions

    Sustain. Cities Soc.

    (2013)
  • J.K.W. Wong et al.

    Toward low-carbon construction processes: the visualisation of predicted emission via virtual prototyping technology

    Automat. Constr.

    (2013)
  • A.J. Marszal et al.

    Zero energy building – a review of definitions and calculation methodologies

    Energ. Build.

    (2011)
  • U Mantau

    Wood flow analysis: quantification of resource potentials, cascades and carbon effects

    Biomass Bioenergy

    (2015)
  • M. Fukuda et al.

    Carbon stock estimates for sugi and hinoki forests in Japan

    For. Ecol. Manage.

    (2003)
  • M.I. Hoffert

    Global distributions of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the fossil-fuel era: a projection

    Atmos. Environ.

    (1974)
  • M.H. Ramage et al.

    The wood from the trees: the use of timber in construction

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2017)
  • J. Monahan et al.

    An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of construction in housing: a case study using a lifecycle assessment framework

    Energ. Build.

    (2011)
  • E. Ritter et al.

    Wood as construction material: a “common” choice for carbon management?

    Environ. Sci. Technol.

    (2013)
  • N Moore

    Timber utilisation statistics 2015

    (2015)
  • V.A. De Araujo et al.

    Wooden residential buildings – a sustainable approach

    Bullet. Transilvania University Brasov Series II

    (2016)
  • A. Gosselin et al.

    Main motivations and barriers for using wood in multi-story and non-residential construction projects

    BioResources

    (2017)
  • Ryall, J. Japanese company plans world's tallest wooden building. 2018. Available...
  • S. Fauset et al.

    Hyperdominance in Amazonian Forest carbon cycling

    Nat. Commun.

    (2015)
  • A.H. Buchanan

    Can timber buildings help reduce global CO2 emissions?

  • S. Bastianoni et al.

    The ecological footprint of building construction

    WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.

    (2006)
  • S.C. Ribeiro et al.

    Influence of interspecific variation on tree carbon stock of Brazilian cerrado

    Rev. Árvore

    (2017)
  • F. Werner et al.

    Carbon pool and substitution effects of an increased use of wood in buildings in Switzerland: first estimates

    Ann. For. Sci.

    (2005)
  • P. van der Lugt

    Carbon storage utilising timber products

    Environ. Ind. Magazine

    (2012)
  • K.E. Skog et al.

    Carbon cycling through wood products: the role of wood and paper products in carbon sequestration

    Forest Prod. J.

    (1996)
  • K. Pingoud et al.

    Carbon dynamics in wood products

    Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Gl.

    (2001)
  • W.A. Côté et al.

    A carbon balance method for paper and wood products

    Environ. Pollut.

    (2002)
  • B. Lippke et al.

    CORRIM: Life-cycle environmental performance of renewable building materials

    Forest Prod. J.

    (2004)
  • D.B. Müller et al.

    Long-term coordination of timber production and consumption using a dynamic material and energy flow analysis

    J. Ind. Ecol.

    (2004)
  • P. Winistorfer et al.

    Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions related to the use, maintenance, and disposal of a residential structure

    Wood Fiber Sci.

    (2005)
  • A. Takano et al.

    Greenhouse gas emission from construction stage of wooden buildings

    Int. Wood Prod. J.

    (2014)
  • L. Gustavsson et al.

    Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution: comparing concrete- and wood-framed buildings

    Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Gl.

    (2006)
  • A.H. Buchanan

    Energy and CO2 advantages of wood for sustainable buildings

    NZ Timber Design J.

    (2007)
  • J. Bowyer et al.

    Wood Products And Carbon Protocols: Carbon Storage And Low Energy Intensity Should Be Considered

    (2008)
  • Eriksson, L.O.; Gustavsson, L.; Hänninen, R.; Kallio, M.; Lyhykäinen, H.; pingoud, K.; Pohjola, J.; Sathre, R.;...
  • D.M. Elustondo et al.

    Model to assess energy consumption in industrial lumber kilns

    Maderas-Cienc. Tecnol.

    (2009)
  • P. Heikkinen et al.

    TES EnergyFaçade – Prefabricated Timber Based Building System For Improving the Energy Efficiency of the Building Envelope

    (2009)
  • M. Kapambwe et al.

    Dynamics of Carbon Stocks in Timber in Australian Residential Housing

    (2009)
  • I. Profft et al.

    Forest management and carbon sequestration in wood products

    Eur. J. For. Res.

    (2009)
  • A. Alcorn et al.

    Life cycle potential of strawbale and timber for carbon sequestration in house construction

  • P.O. Flæte et al.

    Embodied energy and carbon footprint of Norwegian roundwood

  • D. Sasatani et al.

    Construction professionals’ environmental perceptions of lumber, concrete and steel in Japan and China

    Forest. Chron.

    (2012)
  • Cited by (14)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text