Sustainability Performance of Glue Laminated Timber and Non- - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

LAMMC

2019 m. spalio 25 d.

Comparative Assessment of the Sustainability Performance of Glue Laminated Timber and Non- Renewable Material-Based Value Chains

Marius Aleinikovas, Povilas Žemaitis, Edgaras Linkevičius, Gediminas Jasinevičius, Edmundas Petrauskas

LAMMC

⦿ Mitigation

• f

climate change, carbon sequestration and low carbon economy are some of the corner stones of the European bioeconomy strategy.

⦿ Lithuania has sufficient forest resources and a

competitive wood industry, and more than 20% of annual harvest level is exported.

Introduction

LAMMC

⦿ Also, Lithuania exports about 80% of glue

laminated timber for wooden constructions using

• nly

20% for national house construction.

⦿

The production of glue laminated timber (GLT) is rapidly growing in Lithuania.

3

Introduction

LAMMC

⦿

Strengths

• 1. Available forest resources
• 2. Available biofuel and biomass resources
• 3. Cheap and skilled labour force
• 4. Good education system
• 5. Available export markets within short distance (Poland,

Latvia, Belarus, Russia directly by

• land; Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany by sea)

⦿

Possibilities

• 1. Increased sawmilling and wood gluing industries
• 2. Cooperation between science and industry
• 3. Review of wood building regulations
• 4. New innovative products
• 5. Decrease of modern product price or joint ventures between

concrete and wood sectors

4

Results from Stakeholder interaction

LAMMC

⦿

Challenges

• 1. Bureaucracy, planning at the municipality level, also other

political solutions

• 2. Bad cooperation between forestry and wood industry
• 3. Architects and engineers do not have enough knowledge for

the wooden constructions

• 4. Strong competitors in non bioeconomy sector

⦿

Goals

• 1. Education of society via national media channels on

bioeconomy, forestry and sustainability

• 2. Fast communication across industries
• 3. More investments to the new wood-based products
• 4. Lobbying for Lithuanian investments

5

Results from Stakeholder interaction

LAMMC

⦿

Stakeholders clarified that policy makers are inclined to get requests from the wood industries how the bioeconomy sector has to be shaped. Yet, wood industries are not eager to express their requests but rather wait for the regulations from the politicians. In this way, the status quo situation arises.

⦿

Stakeholders also identified a lack of communication between forestry sector and wood industry.

6

Results from Stakeholder interaction

LAMMC

7

The aim of the case study was to design two and five floors GLT and RC (reinforced concrete) public buildings’ frames and then to quantify and to compare sustainability impacts of value chains for non-renewable materials (concrete and RC) and renewable materials (GLT and sawn timber) used to construct these buildings

„Benchmarking the sustainability performance of value chains“

LAMMC

8

Study objectives:

 Design two and five floors GLT and RC public buildings’ frames.  Assess sustainability impacts (social, environmental and economic) of typical public buildings in Lithuania built from RC and GLT.  Benchmark GLT and RC use in the construction sector in Lithuania and provide policy recommendations.

LAMMC

National resources based Value chains

From raw material extraction To reinforced concrete products

From forest logging To glue- laminated timber products

LAMMC

Cooperation partners

Provide data for GLT chain:

• Company “JURES MEDIS” – the largest manufacturers of

glue laminated timber structures in the Baltic states;

• „STORAENSO LITHUANIA“ – the largest sawmill that

produces sawn timber, required for CLT production. Provide data for RC chain:

• “DRASEIKIŲ KARJERAS“ – extract aggregates for concrete;
• KALCITAS“ – extract clay and limestone.
• „AKMENES CEMENTAS“ – the largest cement producer in

Lithuania;

• “AKSA” – reinforced concrete beams producer in Lithuania;

LAMMC

Economic, environmental and social indicators, selected for the analysis

Economic indicators Environmental indicators Social indicators

Gross value added EUR/unit Greenhouse gas emissions, kg CO2 equivalent/unit Employment, full time equivalent/unit Production price, Eur/unit Generation

• f

waste, t/unit. calculated as non-hazardous Occupational accidents, cases/unit Water use, m3/unit. Calculated as consumed underground freshwater Wages and salaries, Eur/unit Energy use for production, MJ/unit Non-renewable raw material used, t/unit Carbon inflow in to the pool t of C/unit

LAMMC

Projected buildings comparison „Konstrukcijų pasaulis“

Type of building – low- rise office;

Two and five floor buildings for more comprehensive benchmarking; Selected materials: GLT and sawn wood construction VS reinforced concrete.

LAMMC

Value chain developed for the Lithuanian GLT production

„ToSIA“ model (EFI) selected for value chain modelling

LAMMC

Value chain developed for the Lithuanian concrete and precast reinforced concrete production

LAMMC

Building parts Wooden building Reinforced concrete building Foundation Site-cast Concrete (C20/25 XC2) + steel bars Site-cast concrete (C20/25 XC2) + steel bars Columns GLT (GL28h) Precast reinforced concrete (C30-37) columns Walls shaft for lift and stairs Site-cast concrete (C30-37) + steel bars Site-cast concrete (C30-37) + steel bars Beams GLT (GL28h) Precast reinforced concrete (C30-37) Floor slabs Sawn wood Precast reinforced concrete (C30-37) Steel conections S355 steel S355 steel

Buildings components and materials

LAMMC

Material used in the projected buildings

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Concrete (m3) Rebar S500 (t) Steel S355 (t) Glue-laminated timber (GL28h) (m3) Sawn wood C24 (m3) m3 or t II floor wooden building II floor reinf. concrete building V floor wooden building V floor reinf. concrete building

LAMMC

Indicator values per one m3

GLT, m3 Sawed timber, m3 Concrete C30-37, m3 Concrete C25-30, m3 Concrete C20-25, m3 Concrete C8-10, m3 Precast RC C30-37, m3 Steel rebar (S500), t Steel joints (S355), t Gross value added (at factor cost), Eur/unit 223.42 64.92 NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* CO2eq., kg/unit 266.4 120.6 412.7 356.1 310.4 241.8 576.2 997.6 1753.6 Employment, FTE/unit 0.007543 0.001448 0.000520 0.000496 0.000469 0.000430 0.006762 NA* NA* Generation of waste in total, t/unit 0.000071 0.000061 0.000053 0.000041 0.0059 0.0315 0.0525 Water use (freshwater intake by industry), m3/unit 0.1260 0.0400 0.451 0.428 0.384 0.272 2.018 12.6 2.65 Production value (price), Eur/unit 470.80 165.00 88.00 85.00 83.00 70.00 241.36 NA* NA* Energy use, MJ/unit 1214.50 622.65 1637.90 1426.40 1249.80 991.30 3523.90 14039.20 18899.20 Occupational accidents, cases/unit 0.000093 0.000063 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 0.000045 NA* NA* Salary, Eur/unit 100.89 18.83 7.65 7.31 6.91 6.31 96.63 NA* NA* Non-renewable raw material , t/unit 0.0105 0.0000 2.4424 2.4675 2.4052 2.3117 2.688 2.90 2.90 Biogenetic carbon storage (carbon inflow in to the pool) tonnes of C/unit 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 * - Data not available

LAMMC

Comparison of II and V flours house, per 1 m2 of produced area

87,4 89,9 208,0 218,6

0,0 50,0 100,0 150,0 200,0 250,0 GLT II floors GLT V floors RC II floors RC V floors

CO2eq., kg/m2

Greenhouse gas emissions

0,00052 0,00054 0,00130 0,00141

0,00000 0,00020 0,00040 0,00060 0,00080 0,00100 0,00120 0,00140 0,00160 GLT II floors GLT V floors RC II floorsRC V floors

FTE/m2

Employment

LAMMC

19

Comparison of II and V flours house, per 1 m2 of living area

0,00090 0,00097 0,00261 0,00261

0,00000 0,00050 0,00100 0,00150 0,00200 0,00250 0,00300 GLT II floors GLT V floors RC II floors RC V floors

t/m2

Generation of waste

0,23 0,24 0,85 0,84

0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 GLT II floors GLT V floors RC II floors RC V floors

m3/m2

Water use

LAMMC

0,000012 0,000011 0,000015 0,000016

0,000000 0,000002 0,000004 0,000006 0,000008 0,000010 0,000012 0,000014 0,000016 0,000018 GLT II floors GLT V floors RC II floors RC V floors

Cases/m2

Occupational accidents

6,94 7,29 16,53 17,89

0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00 16,00 18,00 20,00 GLT II floors GLT V floors RC II floors RC V floors

EUR/m2

Wages and salaries

Comparison of II and V flours house, per 1 m2 of living area

LAMMC

21

Comparison of II and V flours house, per 1 m2 of living area

48,05 46,93 74,00 68,68 470,80 241,36

0,00 100,00 200,00 300,00 400,00 500,00 GLT II floors GLT V floors RC II floors RC V floors GLT 1m3 RC 1m3

EUR/m2

Production price

510 518 1482 1519

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 GLT II floors GLT V floors RC II floors RC V floors

MJ/m2

Energy use

LAMMC

22

0,327 0,333 0,97 1,03

0,000 0,200 0,400 0,600 0,800 1,000 1,200 GLT II floors GLT V floors RC II floorsRC V floors

t/m2

Non-renewable raw material

0,0275 0,0304 0,0000 0,0000

0,0000 0,0050 0,0100 0,0150 0,0200 0,0250 0,0300 0,0350 GLT II floors GLT V floors RC II floors RC V floors

t/m2

Biogenetic carbon storage

Comparison of II and V flours house, per 1 m2 of living area

LAMMC

Displacement factors

23

Building type Displacement Factor CO2 emissions producing concrete building material, tC CO2 emissions producing GLT building material, tC C contained in the wood building, tC C contained in the concrete building, tC II floors building (765 m2) 5.25 159.12 66.89 17.55 V floors building (1,913 m2) 5.09 418.18 171.98 48.39

Displacement factors calculated according to – Sathre R. and O’Connor J. 2010. Meta-analysis

• f

greenhouse gas displacement factors

• f

wood product

• substitution. Environmental Science &Policy. 104-114

LAMMC

Conclusions

Gross value added (GVA) (at factor cost) (Eur/unit). The data for this indicator was available only for GLT frames. The most efficient frame regarding this indicator was two floors GLT frame that generated 14.5 EUR/m2. Greenhouse gas emissions of CO2equivalent, kg/unit. The highest emissions

• f CO2equivalent, kg/m2 where estimated when constructing five floors RC frame.

When constructing GLT constructions emissions were about three times lower. Employment, FTE/m2. The most efficient frame regarding this indicator was two floors GLT frame that required 0.00052 person/m2. Generation of waste in total, t/m2. The most efficient frame regarding this indicator was two floors GLT frame. It is important to note that this amount of waste comes when the foundation materials (concrete and steel) is produced. All the wooden wastes that are produced in sawn timber or GLT chains are further consumed for bioenergy or other products fabrication. When constructing RC frames, 3 times higher amounts of wastes are produced compared to GLT frames.

LAMMC

⦿

Water use. The most efficient frame regarding this indicator was two floors GLT frame 0.23 m3/m2. When constructing RC frames, four times more water is consumed. Also most of the water, used when constructing GLT frames, comes from the production of foundation materials.

⦿

Production value (price), Eur/m2. The most efficient frame regarding this indicator was five floors GLT frame 46.93EUR/m2. Production of

• ne GLT cubic meter that is used in these frames is as twice expensive as

the production of reinforced concrete used to produce RC frames. However, production price of two and five floors GLT frames is lower compared to the same RC frames. It happens because the amount of materials needed to produce GLT two and five floors frames is three times less compared to the same RC frames.

⦿

Energy use, MJ/m2. The most efficient frame regarding this indicator was two floors GLT frame with 510 MJ/m2. When constructing RC frames, 3 times higher amounts of energy is consumed compared to GLT frames.

25

Conclusions

LAMMC

⦿

Occupational accidents, cases/m2. The most efficient frame regarding this indicator was five floors GLT frame with 0.000011 accident/m2. There were no remarkable differences regarding

• ccupational

accidents when producing analysed frames.

⦿

Wages and salaries, Eur/m2. To construct RC two and five floors frames, about three times higher amounts

• f

salaries were needed compared with two and five floors GLT frames.

⦿

Non-renewable raw material, t/m2. To build two and five floors RC frames much higher amounts of non-renewable raw materials is needed compared to two and five floors GLT frames. Also, all non-renewable raw materials, used to produce two and five floors GLT frames go to construction of its foundations (concrete and steel).

⦿

Biogenic carbon storage (carbon inflow in to the pool) t/m2. Only GLT frames has a capacity of biogenetic carbon storage. It was estimated that produced V floor GLT frames stores 0.0304 t/m2 of carbon that is slightly more than II GLT frames.

26

Conclusions

LAMMC

⦿

Construction projects in Lithuania (especially public procurement projects) should be evaluated taking in to account economic, environmental and social impacts of the main material use for the construction.

⦿

Collaboration and communication with stakeholders impose following recommendations: decision making

• n

bioeconomy development in Lithuania shall include consultation with various stakeholder groups including forestry sector, wood industry, building sector and scientists with the clear aim to promote use of local renewable resources in the construction sector. Also it is important to strengthen the communication between various stakeholder groups.

27

Recommendations

LAMMC

2019 m. spalio 25 d.

Thank you for your attention !