Revising regulations unleashes engineered timber buildings potential for climate mitigation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54337/plate2025-10295Keywords:
Timber building, End-of-life modelling, Design for Deconstruction and Reuse, Reference service life, Temporary carbon storageAbstract
Engineered timber can substitute traditional carbon-intense building materials playing a critical role in climate action thanks to its capacity to store biogenic carbon removed from the atmosphere during forest growth. However, the existing regulations and standards developed in the past along with the development of traditional building practices based on concrete and steel, hinder the possibility to fully exploit the potential of engineered timber within the construction sector. Current standards impose 50 years as reference service life for buildings. While irrelevant for traditional materials, which are not carbon stocks, this imposition belittles this unique feature of timber-based materials. Furthermore, current standards for timber-based materials impose well-defined End-of-Life (EoL) scenarios, each culminating with the incineration of the timber – regardless of any cascading process. However, among the possible EoL scenarios, the possibility of reusing engineered timber materials maintaining the same function is not conceived, although technically feasible. Consequently, LCA of buildings following such standards are forced to neglect the potential positive impact of timber-based buildings possibly providing results that tend to favor traditional over timber-based materials. In this work, we show the potential of timber-based buildings to act as a mean of climate mitigation, calling for an urgent modification of the current standard and linked LCA practices. The case study of a timber-based multi-story building shows that RSL extension and reuse reduce the emission by 13% and 1-2% respectively compared to concrete, except for a RSL of 150 years for which the reduction is marginal.
References
Aktas, C. B., & Bilec, M. M. (2012). Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(3), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0363-x
Amiri, A., Ottelin, J., Sorvari, J., & Junnila, S. (2020). Cities as carbon sinks—Classification of wooden buildings. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9), 094076. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba134
Anand, C. K., & Amor, B. (2017). Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.058
Andersen, J. H., Rasmussen, N. L., & Ryberg, M. W. (2022). Comparative life cycle assessment of cross laminated timber building and concrete building with special focus on biogenic carbon. Energy and Buildings, 254, 111604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111604
Churkina, G., Organschi, A., Reyer, C. P. O., Ruff, A., Vinke, K., Liu, Z., Reck, B. K., Graedel, T. E., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nature Sustainability, 3(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4
Collins, F. (2010). Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled concrete: Influence on their carbon footprint. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(6), 549–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0191-4
Cristescu, C., Honfi, D., Sandberg, K., Sandin, Y., Shotton, E., Walsh, S. J., Cramer, M., Ridley-Ellis, D., Harte, A., Ui Chulana, C., Risse, M., Ivanica, R., De Arana-Fernández, M., García Barbero, M., Llana, D., Íñiguez-González, G., Nasiri, B., Hughes, M., & Krofl, Ž. (2020). Design for deconstruction and reuse of timber structures – state of the art review. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ri:diva-52384
Duan, Z., Huang, Q., & Zhang, Q. (2022). Life cycle assessment of mass timber construction: A review. Building and Environment, 221, 109320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109320
EPD International. (2019). Construction Products PCR (2019:14).
European Committee for Standardization. (2013). (BS) EN 335:2013. Durability of wood and wood-based products – Use classes: Definitions, application to solid wood and wood-based products.
European Committee for Standardization. (2014). EN 16485:2014 Round and sawn timber—Environmental product declarations—Product category rules for wood and wood-based products for use in construction.
European Committee for Standardization. (2019). EN 15804:2012+A2:2019 ‘Sustainability of construction works—Environmental product declarations—Core rules for the product category of construction products.
Fazio, S., Biganzoli, F., De Laurentis, V., Zampori, L., Sala, S., & Diaconu, E. (2018). Supporting information to the characterisation factors of recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods: Version 2, from ILCD to EF 3.0. Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/002447
Garcia, R., Alvarenga, R. A. F., Huysveld, S., Dewulf, J., & Allacker, K. (2020). Accounting for biogenic carbon and end-of-life allocation in life cycle assessment of multi-output wood cascade systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122795
Goulouti, K., Padey, P., Galimshina, A., Habert, G., & Lasvaux, S. (2020). Uncertainty of building elements’ service lives in building LCA & LCC: What matters? Building and Environment, 183, 106904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106904
Grant, A., & Ries, R. (2013). Impact of building service life models on life cycle assessment. Building Research & Information, 41(2), 168–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.730735
Hart, J., D’Amico, B., & Pomponi, F. (2021). Whole‐life embodied carbon in multistory buildings: Steel, concrete and timber structures. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(2), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13139
Haugbølle, K., Mahdi, V., Morelli, M., & Wahedi, H. (2021). BUILD levetidstabel. In BUILD levetidstabel (Version 2021) [Rapport]. Institut for Byggeri, By og Miljø (BUILD), Aalborg Universitet.
Hosamo, H., Coelho, G. B. A., Buvik, E., Drissi, S., & Kraniotis, D. (2024). Building sustainability through a novel exploration of dynamic LCA uncertainty: Overview and state of the art. Building and Environment, 264, 111922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111922
International Organization for Standardization. (2011). ISO 15686-1:2011 Buildings and constructed assets—Service life planning.
IPCC. (2006). IPCC 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (H. S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, & K. Tanabe, Eds.; IGES, Japa).
IPCC. (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Janjua, S. Y., Sarker, P. K., & Biswas, W. K. (2021). Sustainability implications of service life on residential buildings – An application of life cycle sustainability assessment framework. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 10, 100109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100109
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 and Buildings, 223, 110091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110091
Marsh, R. (2017). Building lifespan: Effect on the environmental impact of building components in a Danish perspective. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 13(2), 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2016.1205471
Niu, Y., Rasi, K., Hughes, M., Halme, M., & Fink, G. (2021). Prolonging life cycles of construction materials and combating climate change by cascading: The case of reusing timber in Finland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 170, 105555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105555
Oyinkanola, T. M., & Panesar, D. K. (2023). Natural carbonation of uncracked and cracked concrete: Sensitivity of regional geographical variations on the CO2 uptake-to-emissions ratio compared to global estimates. Construction and Building Materials, 409, 134010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.134010
Petrovic, B., Myhren, J. A., Zhang, X., Wallhagen, M., & Eriksson, O. (2019). Life cycle assessment of a wooden single-family house in Sweden. Applied Energy, 251, 113253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.05.056
Pittau, F., Dotelli, G., Arrigoni, A., Habert, G., & Iannaccone, G. (2019). Massive timber building vs. Conventional masonry building. A comparative life cycle assessment of an Italian case study. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 323(1), 012016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012016
Pomponi, F., Hart, J., Arehart, J. H., & D’Amico, B. (2020). Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink? A Reality Check on Feasibility Limits. One Earth, 3(2), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ONEEAR.2020.07.018
Possan, E., Felix, E. F., & Thomaz, W. A. (2016). CO2 uptake by carbonation of concrete during life cycle of building structures. Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 1(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41024-016-0010-9
Potrč Obrecht, T., Kunič, R., Jordan, S., & Legat, A. (2019). Roles of the reference service life (RSL) of buildings and the RSL of building components in the environmental impacts of buildings. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 323(1), 012146. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/323/1/012146
Rauf, A., & Crawford, R. H. (2015). Building service life and its effect on the life cycle embodied energy of buildings. Energy, 79, 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.10.093
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Union Certification Framework for Permanent Carbon Removals, Carbon Farming and Carbon Storage in Products, No. PE-CONS 92/24, European Parliament (2024).
Rüter, S., & Diederichs, S. (2012). Ökobilanz-Basisdaten für Bauprodukte aus Holz (Arbeitsbericht Aus Dem Institut Für Holztechnologie Und Holzbiologie). Thünen-Institut, Vorgängereinrichtung, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, Institut für Holztechnologie und Holzbiologie. https://literatur.thuenen.de/digbib_extern/dn050490.pdf
Sandak, A., Sandak, J., Brzezicki, M., & Kutnar, A. (2019). Bio-based Building Skin. Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3747-5
Silva, A., & De Brito, J. (2021). Service life of building envelopes: A critical literature review. Journal of Building Engineering, 44, 102646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102646
United Nations Environment Programme. (2021). 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. UNEP.
United Nations Environment Programme, & Yale Center for Ecosystems + Architecture. (2023). Building Materials and the Climate: Constructing a New Future. United Nations Environment Programme. https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/43293
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., & Weidema, B. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): Overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
Yang, K.-H., Seo, E.-A., & Tae, S.-H. (2014). Carbonation and CO2 uptake of concrete. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 46, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.01.004
