The need to decrease energy usage and subsequent emissions from the building sector has been at the forefront of U.S. green movement. Not only has energy reduction been viewed as a step for improving the environment, it has financial benefits for companies and homeowners.
To address this, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Concrete Sustainability Hub conducted a life-cycle assessment (LCA) study to evaluate and improve the environmental impact and study how the “dual use” aspect of concrete – its ability to offer a durable structure while providing thermal mass benefits for energy loads – affects the environmental footprint of the structure.
"Methods, Impacts, and Opportunities in the Concrete Building Life Cycle" provides a comprehensive analysis that advances three key areas relevant to the buildings LCA field: methodology, benchmarking, and impact-reduction opportunities. The study is a major development for construction-related life-cycle assessment because it thoroughly examines all phases of the complete life cycle of a building – from acquisition of materials to construction, the use of the building, and finally demolition and end of life.
“Most environmental assessments do not move beyond the construction phase and only provide a partial picture of the full impact a particular material can have on a building. This is short-sighted,” David Shepherd, director of sustainable development for the Portland Cement Association (PCA) said. “The heating, cooling, and general operations of buildings and homes in the United States accounts for approximately 70 percent of national energy consumption each year and an accurate LCA needs to include the operational phase.”
Concrete, essential for the construction of buildings and homes, has largely been chosen as a building material for its structural properties rather than its energy-saving properties. Although sustainable builders have known the thermal mass attributes of concrete significantly reduce heating and cooling needs, the energy consumption required to produce its key ingredient, cement, has raised questions about its environmental viability.
In its environmental assessment, MIT researchers found concrete homes produce lower greenhouse gas emissions than current best practice code – compliant wood-frame residences throughout a 60-year service life.
Concrete homes did have a higher embodied global warming potential (GWP) associated with the pre-use phase of LCA when raw materials are harvested and turned into construction materials, transported to the site, and assembled into the finished home. However, this phase accounts for only about 2 to 12%of the overall global warming potential for the life of the home. For the 60-year period of the study, houses constructed with insulated concrete forms have 5 to 8 percent lower GWP than current code compliant light frame wood houses, based on greater thermal mass and higher R-values. Researchers found similar results when evaluating multifamily residences.
Commercial office buildings built with a concrete structural frame produce slightly less greenhouse gas emissions over a 60-year service life than commercial structures built with steel frames, based on the results of the comprehensive MIT assessment.
MIT researchers then evaluated strategies to lower a concrete building’s carbon footprint and overall environmental impact. A major advancement was the incorporation of a cost-impact analysis to determine whether or not a given environmental reduction strategy made economic sense. Among the strategies evaluated, the two that reduced embodied emissions – increased fly ash and reducing the thickness of concrete walls from a 6-inch to a 4-inch concrete core – were found to be both economical and effective ways to reduce emissions. BD+C
Related Stories
| Feb 23, 2015
6 trends changing the way city dwellers live
Across the cultural grid, from food to retail to transportation, America's urban areas are already undergoing a major metamorphosis. Here are the six major trends shaping our cities, from Fast Company.
Green | Feb 23, 2015
State of the green union, and the next big shift in sustainability
The history of the green movement offers cues that we are on the precipice of another significant shift in the green union.
| Feb 23, 2015
Where are the iconic green buildings?
What does a green building look like? How would you know one if you saw one? Maybe a trivial question to some, but of great interest to architects, designers, and other members of the Building Team as the rapid evolution of sustainable buildings continues apace.
Sports and Recreational Facilities | Feb 21, 2015
Pumped-up recreation centers help build body, mind, and spirit
Adopting facility layouts from Asian and European models, today’s sports and recreational buildings are becoming social hubs that accommodate a variety of community needs.
University Buildings | Feb 20, 2015
Penn strengthens campus security by reviving its surrounding neighborhood
In 1996, the University of Pennsylvania’s sprawling campus in Philadelphia was in the grip of an unprecedented crime wave. But instead of walling themselves off from their surrounding neighborhoods, the school decided to support the community.
Sports and Recreational Facilities | Feb 20, 2015
Chargers, Raiders propose joint stadium in Carson
Two rival teams may bring the NFL back to Los Angeles.
Cultural Facilities | Feb 20, 2015
‘Floating’ park on New York’s Hudson River moves one step closer to reality
The developers envision the 2.4-acre space as a major performance arts venue.
Multifamily Housing | Feb 19, 2015
Is multifamily construction getting too frothy for demand?
Contractors are pushing full speed ahead, but CoStar Group thinks a slowdown might be in order this year.
Architects | Feb 19, 2015
Illustrator Federico Babina imagines architecture from nowhere
The illustrator imagines architecture where past, present, and future intertwine.
Codes and Standards | Feb 18, 2015
USGBC concerned about developers using LEED registration in marketing
LEED administrators are concerned about a small group of developers or project owners who tout their projects as “LEED pre-certified” and then fail to follow through with certification.