Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 8695

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Energy and environmental indicators related to construction of ofce buildings

A. Dimoudi a,b, , C. Tompa b
a b

Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Vass. Soas 12, 67100 Xanthi, Greece Hellenic Open University, MSc Environmental Design of Cities and Buildings, Patra, Greece

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Buildings construction has a major determining role on the environment through consumption of land and raw materials and generation of waste. It is also a signicant user of non-renewable energy and an emitter of greenhouse gases and other gaseous wastes. As environmental issues continue to become increasingly signicant, buildings become more energy efcient and the energy needs for their operation decreases. Thus, the energy required for construction and consequently, for the material production, is getting of greater importance. The present paper investigates the role of different construction materials and quanties them in terms of the embodied energy and the equivalent emissions of CO2 and SO2 in contemporary ofce buildings. It also assesses the importance of the embodied energy of the buildings structure as compared to the operational energy of the building. It was shown that the embodied energy of the structures building materials (concrete and reinforcement steel) represents the largest component in the buildings total embodied energy of the examined buildings, varing from 66.73% to 59.57%, while the embodied energy of the building envelopes materials represents a lower but signicant proportion of the buildings total embodied energy. When the construction elements are examined, the slabs have the higher contribution at the embodied energy of the studied buildings and from the envelope elements, the external wall is contributing the maximum in the overall embodied energy of the building. The embodied energy correspondence varies between 12.55 and 18.50% of the energy needed for the operation of an ofce building over a 50 years life. 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 21 July 2008 Received in revised form 8 September 2008 Accepted 16 September 2008 Keywords: Construction materials environmental assessment Embodied energy Sustainable construction

1. Introduction Buildings construction has a major determining role on the environment. It is a major consumer of land and raw materials and generates a great amount of waste. It is also a signicant user of nonrenewable energy and an emitter of greenhouse gases and other gaseous wastes (Kospomoulos, 2004). The construction industry is one of the greatest consumers of raw materials, following the food industry which is in the top list (Berge, 2000). According to data from the Worldwatch Institute, the construction of buildings consumes 40% of the stone, sand and gravel, 25% of the timber and 16% of the water used annually in the world (Arena and de Rosa, 2003). The building and construction sector (i.e. including production and transport of building materials) in OECD countries consumes from 25% to 40% of the total energy used (as much as 50% in some coun-

Corresponding author at: Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Vass. Soas 12, 67100 Xanthi, Greece. Tel.: +30 25410 79 388; fax: +30 25410 79 388. E-mail address: adimoudi@env.duth.gr (A. Dimoudi). 0921-3449/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.09.008

tries) (Asif et al., 2007). Buildings through their construction, use and demolition, consume approximately 50% of the nal energy consumption in the members states of the European Union and contribute almost 50% of the CO2 emissions released in the atmosphere, the basic gas responsible for the greenhouse effect. In 2006, the main construction activities in the 27 Member Countries of the European Union are distributed as 27% in the domestic sector, 30% in the non-domestic sector, 20% in infrastructure works and 23% in renovation and conservation works (Campogrande, 2007). Several studies have shown that operational energy accounts for the main amount of total energy use in dwellings during an assumed service life of 50 years and it is approximately 8595% of the total energy use (Thormark, 2006). As environmental issues continue to become increasingly signicant, buildings become more energy efcient and the energy needs for their operation decreases and thus, the energy required for construction and consequently, for the material production, is getting of greater importance. Studies concerning low-energy housing show that embodied energy can account for as much as 4060% of total energy use (Winter and Hestnes, 1999; Thormark, 2002). It was also shown that in a low-energy building the total energy may be even higher

A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 8695

87

than in a building with higher operational energy needs, as large amounts of energy are needed for production and maintenance of the technical equipment (Feist, 1996) and to the fact that highembodied energy components are often subject to a wide range of replacements (Scheuer et al., 2003). Other studies have investigated the role of different building materials on the overall energy balance and environmental inuence of the buildings construction sector. The main materials investigated in different national case studies are wood, concrete, steel, brick, with wood based constructions resulting at the lowest energy needs and CO2 emissions compared to the other materials (Koch, 1992; Buchanan and Honey, 1994; Cole and Kernal, 1996; Buchanan and Levine, 1999; Lenzen and Treloar, 2002; Perez-Garcia et al., 2005; Gustavsson and Sathre, 2006). Studies of Dutch residential constructions revealed that an increase in wood use could reduce CO2 emissions by almost 50%, compared with traditional Dutch constructions (Goverse et al., 2001). Selection of low environmental impact materials can result at a reduction up to 30% of CO2 emissions in the construction phase, as concluded from a case study of terraced houses in Spain (Gonzlez and Navarro, 2006). Other studies have investigated the environmental impact of local construction materials and practices (Venkatarama et al., 2003). When the relevant contribution of the different building materials was assessed in a typical semi detached three-bedroom house in Scotland, it was found that concrete, timber and ceramic tiles are the three major energy intensive materials used in the building, with concrete alone consuming about 65% of the total embodied energy of the home. Since concrete has been used in large quantity, it was proved that concrete and mortar are responsible for 99% of the total CO2 resulting from the house construction (Asif et al., 2007). Different factors affect the energy and CO2 balances associated with building materials over their lifecycle. According to Gustavsson and Sathre (2006), some of these can be described as uncertainties, resulting from stochastic variations or from lack of knowledge of precise parameter values. Examples of sources of uncertainty in CO2 balance related to building materials include the growth rate of a particular forest stand and the decomposition dynamics of land lled wood. Uncertainty in energy balance can be caused, for example, by natural differences in physical properties of raw materials such as wood or stone, requiring different amounts of processing energy. Other factors that inuence energy and CO2 balances can be described as variability, determined by human decisions and management methods. Examples include the process technology used to manufacture cement, the fuel used to drive production processes, and the choice of using primary or recycled steel. Combinations of uncertainty and variability that may be difcult to separate can also affect energy and CO2 balances. For example, different factories may produce identical products using physical processes of different efciency (i.e. with variability) but when aggregated in the marketplace or building stock it may be impossible to distinguish the differences (i.e. uncertainty is present). The effect on the overall environmental performance of buildings of different manufacturing procedures and end-of-life alternatives of the building materials was also investigated in several studies. The effects of land use and end-of-life alternatives of building materials were assessed for the case of wood and concreteframed buildings and it was concluded that wood-framed buildings have lower energy use and greenhouse gas emission than concreteframed buildings (Borjesson and Gustavsson, 2000). Considering wood substitution in the case of Swedish and Norwegian studies it was found that wood construction consistently results in lower greenhouse gas emission than non-wood materials, with the amount depending on material waste management and how

forest carbon ows are considered (Petersen and Solberg, 2005). For the cases of a wood and a concrete-framed building, a variation of key parameters in the manufacture (e.g. clinker production efciency, blending of cement, crushing of aggregate, recycling of steel, lumber drying efciency) and use of the materials (e.g. material transportation distance, carbon intensity of fossil fuel, recovery of logging, sawmill, construction and demolition residues for biofuel, growth and exploitation of surplus forest not needed for wood material production) were considered and it was concluded that the use of wood building material instead of concrete, coupled with greater integration of wood by-products into energy systems, would be an effective means of reducing fossil fuel use and net CO2 emission to the atmosphere (Gustavsson and Sathre, 2006). The need for considering not only the operational energy of a building but also the energy attributable to activities being undertaken by actual users of a building as well as common activities of households for a couple over a 30-year period was examined in an example of an Australian two bedroom residential building. It was found that the amount of primary energy simulated for the operational energy of the house and the petrol used in motor vehicles represented only 30% of the total life cycle energy, showing that the indirect energy component of the life cycle energy of the house and the households activities is more important than the direct energy component (i.e. for house operation and car operation). (Treloar et al., 2000). Use of any method can only be as successful as the validity of the respective database and thus, any results drawn from an environmental study for a building have to be accompanied by a detailed statement on the origins of the basic data used for the evaluation of the building components (Papadopoulos and Giama, 2007). The embodied energy related to construction of ofce buildings was evaluatad by Cole and Kernal (1996) for construction practices in Canada. Reviewing previous relevant work for ofce buildings (in N. Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, U.S., U.K.), they showed that big differences on estimated values between the different case studies existvariation by up to 10 times. The present paper investigates the role of different construction materials and quanties them in terms of the embodied energy and the equivalent emissions of CO2 and SO2 in contemporary ofce buildings in Greece. It also assesses the importance of the embodied energy of the buildings structure as compared to the operational energy of the building. The environmental impact of two ofce buildings in Greece, following contemporary construction practice was evaluated for the construction phases of a building, work that corresponds at about 5560% of the total budget of the project. The aims of the current paper are to: investigate whether there are signicant differences in initial embodied energy of different construction practices in ofce buildings in Greece: a more conventional one and one with more contemporary materials, investigate the order of magnitude of the embodied energy of the construction materials compared with the overall energy performance of the building. Thus, the analysis proceeded into comparing the embodied energy and the relevant environmental indicators (CO2 , SO2 emissions) of the construction materials with the operational energy of the buildings, highlight the importance of embodied energy of the structural materials as compared with the operational energy needs of ofce buildings based on current and future energy needs of ofce building in Greece. The analysis of the contribution of the different building elements and materials on the overall embodied energy of the building aimed at identifying those components and materials with the

88

A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 8695

higher contribution on the energy embodied in the construction of ofce buildings and thus, at exploring possible proposals on minimizing them. In this particular case study, only the emissions of CO2 and SO2 have been studied (gases which contribute to global warming and atmospheric acidication respectively) but the same study can also be extended to other harmful environmental implications imposed by the construction industry: for example, the emission of heavy metals to the atmosphere and water, the use of non-renewable energy sources, the effects on eutrophication and on water consumption.

2. Case study ofce buildings The construction practices in two contemporary ofce buildings, located at Athens, Greece, were investigated. The two examined ofce buildings are of different morphology and size, nevertheless, both buildings are constructed according to the same national standards (e.g. Thermal Insulation Regulation, Building Codes, Concrete Codes and Fire-protection regulation). The buildings envelope materials differ but they can be considered as typical construction solutions for contemporary ofce buildings in Greece. The selection of these two typical ofce buildings was made in order to compare and quantify the environmental impact of different building materials and elements in the construction of ofce buildings. The 1st examined building is a ve-storey, ofce building with 2 basements and a at roof. The total usable area of the building (including the basement) is 1891 m2 . The support frame of the building is constructed of reinforced concrete (category class C16/20) according to the current national concrete standards. The external and internal walls were constructed of brick and mortar. External walls are double brickwalls (0.27 m thickness) with core thermal insulation, a 5-cm thick extruded polystyrene layer. The external concrete building elements (columns, beams, structural walls) were also externally thermally insulated with a 5-cm thick extruded polystyrene layer. The envelope of the basement is not thermally insulated but water resistance layers were applied. The at, reinforced concrete roof of the building was insulated with a 5-cm extruded polystyrene layer. The ooring material is ceramic tiles in the ofce spaces and marble in the corridors and staircases. The 2nd examined building is a three-storey, ofce building with a basement and a at roof. The total usable area of the

building (including the basement) is 400 m2 . The support frame of the building is constructed of reinforced concrete (category class C16/20) according to the national standards. The external and internal walls were constructed of brick and mortar. The external walls are double brickwalls (0.27 m thickness), with core thermal insulation of a 5-cm thick mineral wool layer. The external concrete building elements (columns, beams, structural walls) were externally insulated with a 5-cm thick extruded polystyrene layer. The basement is not thermally insulated but water resistant protection was applied. The at reinforced concrete roof of the building has a 5-cm extruded polystyrene layer. The building facades are covered with aluminium cladding, an element that is used in the last years in the construction of modern style ofce buildings. The aluminium composite panel (4 mm thickness and density 1425 kg/m3 ) consists of two aluminium sheets (0.50 mm thickness and density 2700 kg/m3 ) with a polyethylene core (3 mm thickness and density 1000 kg/m3 ). The ooring material is vinyl tiles in the ofces and marble in all corridors and staircases. 3. Methodology Each building was analysed in the different building elements that constitute it, according to the project drawings. The building elements were in turn analysed into their constituent material layers. The data for the environmental parameters of the different building materials were collected from the international literature (SIA, CBPR) as presented in Bikas, 2001 (Table 1), since there is no data available in Greece. As far as the aluminium composite panel is concerned, data were not available and in order to calculate its environmental attributes, the material was analysed according to its constituent layers. The construction details together with quantity data of the environmental attributes to 7 of the main building elements (per 1 m2 of external area), covering 5 elements of the building envelope (insulated) and 2 internal building elements (uninsulated) are presented in Tables 2a and 2b (Tompa, 2005). The table illustrates the construction details of each element, description of each material layer with its corresponding thickness and in the last column the energy and environmental characteristics of each building element. The reinforcement steel was considered in the estimations of the building element involving reinforcement concrete. The construction data for Building 1 were used.

Table 1 Environmental attributes (embodied energy and equivalent CO2 and SO2 emissions) of building materials. Material Mortar Cement ooring tiles Light concrete (for slopes) Concrete (structure) Reinforcement steel Extruded polysterene Mineral wool Brick Ceramic tiles Internal plaster External plaster PVC membrane Aluminium sheet Polyethylene Vinyl tiles Embodied energy (MJ/kg) 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.7 9.9 90.7a 15.9 2.7a 2.5 1.4 1.4 51.6 312.7 103b 79.1b Equivalent CO2 (g CO2 /kg) 74 123 68 123 474 1914a 1042 247 225 181 182 2043 11815 Equivalent SO2 (g SO2 /kg) 0.29 0.4 0.25 0.4 1.79 17.57a 4.22 0.94 1.09 0.61 0.63 14.27 94.83 Lifetime 80 80 80 Data source

SIA SIA SIA

40 80 40 40 25 SIA SIA SIA SIA

Source: Bikas, 2001. a Bikas and Milonas, 1999. b Centre for Building Performance Research, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, http://www.vuw.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-coefcients.pdf.

A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 8695 Table 2a Environmental attributes of building elements (Reinforcement steel was considered in estimations).

89

4. Results and discussion 4.1. Buildings embodied energy assessment and relevant environmental indicators The values of the embodied energy and the equivalent emissions of CO2 and SO2 in terms of total values and per square meter of overall oor area of each building are presented in Table 3 and in graphical form in Figs. 13.

The embodied energy of building 1 reaches the value of 3647 GJ while for building 2 the corresponding value is 1309 GJ, corresponding with 378 tn CO2 and 1.5 tn SO2 for building 1 and 116 tn CO2 and 0.5 tn SO2 for building 2. It is shown that although the total value of embodied energy, equivalent CO2 and SO2 emissions for building 1 are greater than building 2 (Table 3), the corresponding specic values expressed per oor area are greater for building 2 (Figs. 13) (Tompa and Dimoudi, 2007). The relevant contribution of the different materials on the environmental performance

90

A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 8695

Table 2b Environmental attributes of building elements (Reinforcement steel was considered in estimations).

Table 3 Embodied energy and equivalents CO2 and SO2 of buildings 1 and 2. Embodied energy (GJ) Building 1 Building 2 3647 1309 Equivalent CO2 (kg) 377899 115759 Equivalent SO2 (kg) 1469 464 Embodied energy/m2 (GJ/m2 ) 1.93 3.27 Equivalent CO2 (kg/m2 ) 199.84 289.40 Equivalent SO2 (kg/m2 ) 0.78 1.16

of the two building is analysed and discussed in the following sections. 4.2. Building materials Each building was analysed into its construction materials in order to analyse and compare the energy and environmental attribute of each one of the two construction practices. The common building materials in both buildings were concrete, reinforcement steel, bricks, extruded polysterene for the insulation of structural building elements and for the insulation of at roof, plaster, mortar,cement ooring tiles, PVC membrane. Building materials that differ concern insulation of the external brickwalls (building 1: extruded polysterene, building 2: mineral wool), the fac ade cladding (building 1: plaster, building 2: cladding with aluminium composite panel) and the ooring materials (building 1: ceramic tiles, building 2: vinyl tiles). The total quantities and the environmental parameters of each material used

in every building are presented in Table 4 for building 1 and in Table 5 for building 2. The percentage participation of the weight and environmental parameters of building materialsembodied energy, equivalent CO2 and SO2 emissions in the entire building is presented in Fig. 4 for building 1 and in Fig. 5 for building 2. By examining the results of the analysis we can see that: The embodied energy of the structures building materials (reinforced concrete) represents the largest component in the buildings total embodied energy for both buildings, representing 66.73% for building 1 (42.43% for concrete and 24.3% for reinforcement steel) and 59.57% for building 2 (35.78% for concrete and 23.79% for reinforcement steel). The embodied energy of building envelopes materials represents a lower but signicant proportion of the buildings total embodied energy. In case of the conventional construction (building 1) bricks have the higher embodied energy than the other envelope materials, with a contribution of 10.70%. In case of the more modern construction with aluminium cladding, the sit-

Fig. 1. Embodied energy per m2 of total oor area of the building.

Fig. 2. Equivalent CO2 emissions per m2 of buildings total oor area.

A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 8695 Table 4 Structural materials and environmental parameters of building materialsbuilding 1. Material Concrete Reinforcement steel Bricks Cement ooring tiles Mortar Internal plasters External plasters Ceramic tiles Extruded polystyrene PVC membrane Total Volume (m3 ) 930.795 11.332 103.236 9.038 29.154 88.434 17.891 30.794 67.533 2.566 Density (kg/m3 ) 2400 7900 1400 2400 1800 1800 1900 2000 35 1000 Weight (kg) 2233908 89521 144530 21691 52477 159181 33993 61588 2364 2566 Embodied energy (MJ) 1547467 886258 390231 26029 26239 222853 47590 153970 214415 132406 3647458 Equivalent CO2 (kg) 234593 42433 35699 2668 3883 28812 6187 13857 4525 5242 377899

91

Equivalent SO2 (kg) 885 160 136 9 15 97 21 67 42 37 1469

Fig. 3. Equivalent SO2 emissions per m2 of buildings total oor area.

uation is quite different as the aluminium claddings have the higher embodied energy from all other envelope materials (11.14%) despite its small total weight compared to the overall weight of materials used in the building. The application of aluminium claddings also inuences the relevant contribution of plaster in the total embodied energy. The percentage participation of plaster (internal and external) is 7.41% for building 1, while for building 2 is only 4.07%, as the building facades are covered with aluminium cladding. This relatively low percentage participation of bricks is due to the fact that the internal brickwalls are limited in both buildings and especially in building 1, as the partitins are constructed of plasterboard, a common practice in ofce buildings. Anyway, in residential buildings, the percentage participation of bricks in the buildings total embodied energy is much higher, resulting at much lower percentage participation of concrete and of reinforcement steel. The percentage participation of the insulation materials, extruded polystyrene for both buildings and additional mineral

wool for building 2, is signicantly lower (5.88% and 4.96% for buildings 1 and 2 respectively), as well as the percentage participation of PVC membrane (3.63% for building 1 and 5.51% for building 2), despite the very high values of the materials embodied energy, as they are used in very small quantities in both buildings. As far as the ooring materials are concerned, in building 2, the percentage participation of vinyl tiles is relatively high (6.54%) if we take into consideration their small thickness while in building 1, the percentage participation of ceramic tiles is 4.22%. When the paints are also analysed, it is found that they contribute with less than 1% in the overall balance of the embodied energy of the buildings, the values ranging from 0.88% for building 1 to 0.49% for building 2. The CO2 equivalent emissions of the structures building materials (concrete and reinforcement steel) represent a dominant proportion of the buildings total equivalent CO2 emissions for both buildings, representing 73.30% for building 1 (62.08% for concrete and 11.22% for reinforcement steel) and 75.30% for building 2 (62.42% for concrete and 12.88% for reinforcement steel). The CO2 equivalent emissions of building envelopes materials represent a lower proportion of the buildings total CO2 equivalent emissions, about the one fourth of the total CO2 emissions from the building. Bricks are the greater contributor from the envelope material in CO2 emissions, with percentage of 9.45% and 7.30% for buildings 1 and 2 respectively. The percentage participation of plaster is signicantly lower, 9.26% for building 1 and 5.94% for building 2, while the percentage participation of aluminium composite panel is 4.15%. The percentage values of the extruded polystyrene and the PVC membrane are lower, despite the very high values of the materials CO2 equivalent emissions because they are used in very small quantities in the buildings. The SO2 equivalent emissions of the structures building materials (concrete and reinforcement steel) represent a dominant

Table 5 Structural materials and evironmental parameters of building materialsbuilding 2. Material Concrete Reinforcement steel Bricks Cement ooring tiles Mortar Internal plasters External plasters Vinyl tiles Mineral wool Extruded polystyrene PVC membrane Aluminium panel Total Volume (m3 ) 283.573 3.980 24.450 4461 2.230 19.594 1.455 0.722 5.468 17.740 1.397 0.506 Density (kg/m3 ) 2400 7900 1400 2400 1800 1800 1900 1500 100 35 1000 1425 Weight (kg) 680575 31442 34230 10706 4015 35269 2765 1083 547 621 1397 721 Embodied energy (MJ) 468373 311424 92421 12848 2008 49377 3871 85665 8694 56316 72085 145845 1308927 Equivalent CO2 (kg) 72259 14911 8455 1317 297 6384 503 2213 570 1188 2854 4809 115759 Equivalent SO2 (kg) 261 56 32 4 1 22 2 15 2 11 20 38 464

92

A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 8695

Fig. 4. Contribution of the different materials in the embodied energy, equivalent CO2 and SO2 emissions in building 1.

proportion of the buildings total equivalent SO2 emissions for both buildings, representing 71.18% for building 1 (60.27% for concrete and 10.91% for reinforcement steel) and 68.29% for building 2 (56.16% for concrete and 12.13% for reinforcement steel). The SO2 equivalent emissions of building envelopes materials represent a signicant proportion of the buildings total SO2 equivalent emissions, with bricks contributing with 9.25% and 6.93% for buildings 1 and 2 respectively. The percentage participation of plasters is 8.07% for building 1 and 5.01% for building 2, while the percentage participation of the aluminium composite panel in the building 2 is signicantly higher (8.14%), because of the very high value of the materials SO2 equivalent emissions (94.83 g SO2 /kg). The percentage values of insulation and PVC membrane are lower, despite the very high values of the materials SO2 equivalent emissions as they are used in very small quantities in buildings. The percentage values of the environmental attributes of the structures building materials and of brick in the envelope do not present considerable differentiation in both buildings, despite their different morphology, because the quantities of materials used are proportional to the oor area. The percentage participation of concrete is of great importance for the buildings total embodied energy, as it rises to 42% and, if we include the reinforcement steel, it rises to 66%, while the percentage participation of concrete in the entire building values of the equivalent SO2 is even more signicant. Concrete as a material has smaller values of embodied energy and environmental impacts as compared to other construc-

tion materials such as aluminium, ceramic and vinyl tiles. However, since concrete is used in a very large quantity in any construction, it becomes responsible for a large share of the gross embodied energy and environmental impacts. Given the fact that buildings in Greece are mainly built of reinforced concrete and that buildings total embodied energy is proportional to the amount of the material used and to the value of the materials embodied energy, the rst priority should be the choice of construction practices which save quantities of material. Another priority should be the use of building elements with low embodied energy and equivalent pollutant emitters (CO2 , SO2 ). Among materials with comparable properties, one must choose the material not only with the lower embodied energy but also with the lower environmental impact, even when this material is present in small quantities and its participation in the entire building values does not seem signicant. So, ceramic tiles are preferable to vinyl tiles and plaster is preferable to aluminium composite cladding panels. However, it can be argued that aluminium composite cladding panels have the advantage of a longer life span and they may also be produced from recycled aluminium. Ceramic tiles have longer life duration than vinyl tiles and their replacement may not be required during the assumed building life span. Materials, that are present in very small quantities in a building, such as insulation and PVC membrane, however, have disproportionate environmental impact due to their production procedures.

Fig. 5. Contribution of the different materials in the embodied energy, equivalent CO2 and SO2 emissions in building 2.

A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 8695

93

Fig. 6. Contribution of the different building elements in the overall embodied energy, equivalent CO2 and SO2 emissions in building 1.

4.3. Building elements The estimation of the embodied energy and the equivalent CO2 and SO2 emissions of the building construction elements (beams, columns, shear walls, slabs, at roof, staircase, foundation) which are constituted from reinforced concrete, was based on the values of the total weight of reinforcement steel and concrete, as taken from the records of the construction company and the construction details of the different building elements. The total quantity of steel was equally distributed at each building element according to the volume of concrete corresponding at each element constructed of reinforced concrete. The relevant contribution of the main structural elements in the embodied energy and environmental emissions, CO2 and SO2 , are illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7 for buildings 1 and 2 respectively. When the construction elements are examined, we observe that slabs have the higher contribution at the embodied energy in both buildings with a proportion of 35.0% and 27.0% for buildings 1 and 2 respectively. According to the comments made in the previous section, this can be attributed at the high quantities of reinforced concrete used in this building component. Shear walls have also a high contribution in the overall performance. This conclusion is in accordance with previous relevant studies for buildings in Greece (Bikas, 2001). It should be stated that construction practices in Greece due to strict standards for earthquake protection of buildings demand big surfaces of support frame elements made of reinforced concrete.

From the envelope elements, the external wall is contributing the maximum with 1214% in the overall embodied energy of the building. As the studied buildings are ofce buildings which are usually open plan buildings, without internal walls, the external walls are the dominant envelope element regarding their environmental performance. 4.4. Overall energy assessment of the two buildings The embodied energy of the building construction materials are compared with the energy needed to operate an ofce building in the area of Athens (climatic zone B). Studies on the energy performance of ofce buildings based on energy audit data of ofce buildings in different regions of Greece (Santamouris et al., 1994) and veried by comparing them against the actual annual energy balance data reported by the Hellenic Ministry of Development give that the overall energy consumption of an ofce varies according to the construction period of the building and the climatic zone it is located (Gaglia et al., 2007). The specic annual overall energy consumption (in kWh/m2 ), covering both thermal and electrical energy consumption, for ofce buildings in each of the 4 climatic zones (AD) is presented in Table 6. The mean overall energy consumption for a building constructed in the last decade (period 2001) is 131 kWh/m2 while for buildings to be constructed in the future (period 2010) the expected energy consumption is estimated at 141 kWh/m2 . By comparing the embodied energy of the two buildings (Table 3) with the expected operational energy (Table 6), for

Fig. 7. Contribution of the different building elements in the overall embodied energy, equivalent CO2 and SO2 emissions in building 2.

94

A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 8695

Table 6 Equivalent years between embodied energy and operation energy for the 2 ofce buildings. Climatic zone (construction period: 2001) A Annual overall energy consumption (kWh/m2 ) Equivalent years Building 1 Building 2 119 B 126 C 140 D 158 131 Mean value Climatic zone (construction period: 2010) A 136 B 137 C 147 D 166 141 Mean value

6.91 10.19

6.53 9.62 13.05 19.24

5.87 8.66 11.75 17.31

5.20 7.67 10.41 15.34

6.28 9.25 12.55 18.50

6.05 8.91 12.09 17.82

6.00 8.85 12.00 17.69

5.59 8.25 11.19 16.49

4.95 7.30 9.91 14.60

5.83 8.60 11.66 17.19

% Contribution (over expected life period) Building 1 13.82 Building 2 20.37

buildings constructed in the decade of 2000, this corresponds at 6.91 years for the climatic zone A (regions with high ambient temperatures) to 5.20 years for the climatic zone D (regions with the lowest ambient temperatures), with a value of 6.28 years for a mean structure in Greece. For buildings to be constructed in the near future (period 2010), the corresponding values vary from 6.05 to 4.95 years with a mean value of 5.83 years. For the more contemporary construction (building 2), the equivalent years are much higher, as they vary from 10.19 to 7.67 years with a mean value of 9.25 years for the construction period 2001 while for a future construction these values vary form 8.91 to 7.30 with a mean value of 8.60 years. For a life cycle of a building of 50 years, the embodied energy of the two buildings corresponds at 13.05% and 19.24% of the overall energy consumption of the buildings for the climatic zone B, where the studied buildings belong. In average, the embodied energy correspondence varies between 12.55% and 18.50% of the energy needed for the operation of an ofce building constructed in the last decade. A signicant parameter that affects energy consumption of buildings and the overall ecological balance is heat island. Energy consumption for cooling of buildings shows an increasing trend worldwide not only in countries that are characterized by hot climatic conditions but also in cities suffering from the heat island effect. Urban heat islands with daytime average air temperatures 25 C higher than the surrounding rural areas are present in many cities around the world while in Athens, Greece, the daily heat island intensity under the canopy was found to be close to 10 C (Santamouris, 2007). Heat islands attribute not only to thermal discomfort but also the increased air temperatures, raise air-conditioning energy consumption in buildings and peak electricity demand. Innovative materials, like cool building materials, have been developed during the last years, achieving decrease of the demand for air conditioning of buildings (Akbari et al., 1992; Synnefa et al., 2007). In the existence of available data of the embodied energy of these materials, the assessment of the overall energy performance of buildings will give valuable results.

5. Conclusions This papers has studied the contribution of building materials in the overall environmental performance of ofce buildings by examining 2 ofce buildings in Athens, Greece. The embodied energy of the structures building materials (concrete and reinforcement steel) represents the largest component in the buildings total embodied energy of the examined buildings, representing 66.73% for building 1 and 59.57% for building 2 while the embodied energy of the building envelopes materials represents a lower but signicant proportion of the buildings total

embodied energy. The percentage participation of the insulation materials and ooring materials is signicantly lower despite the very high values of the materials embodied energy, as they are used in small quantities in both buildings. In case of the more modern construction with aluminium cladding, the aluminium claddings have the higher embodied energy from all other envelope materials (11.14%) despite their small total weight compared to the overall weight of materials used in the building. The application of aluminium claddings also inuences the relevant contribution of plaster in the total embodied energy. The CO2 equivalent emissions of the structures building materials represent a dominant proportion of the buildings total equivalent CO2 emissions for both buildings, representing 73.30% for building 1 and 75.30% for building 2 while the building envelopes materials represent a lower proportion of the buildings total CO2 equivalent emissions, about the one fourth of the total CO2 emissions from the building. Concrete as a material has smaller values of embodied energy and environmental impacts as compared to other construction materials such as aluminium, ceramic and vinyl tiles. Given the fact that buildings in Greece are mainly built of reinforced concrete and that the buildings total embodied energy is proportional to the amount of the materials used and to the value of the materials embodied energy, the rst priority should be the choice of construction practices which save quantities of material. When the construction elements are examined we observe that slabs have the higher contribution at the embodied energy in both buildings, with a proportion of 35.0% and 21.0% for buildings 1 and 2 respectively. From the envelope elements, the external wall is contributing the maximum with 1213% in the overall embodied energy of the building. As the studied buildings are ofce buildings which are usually open plan buildings, without internal walls, the external walls are the dominant envelope element regarding their environmental performance. The embodied energy of the shell of the two ofce buildings, support frame and envelope, corresponds at 6.53 and 9.62 years of the expected energy consumption for the operation of these building in the climatic zone B, with a value of 6.289.25 years for a mean structure in Greece for buildings 1 and 2 accordingly. For a life cycle of a building of 50 years, the embodied energy of the two buildings corresponds at 13.05% and 19.24% of the overall energy consumption of the buildings for the climatic zone B, where the studied buildings belong. In average, the embodied energy correspondence varies between 12.55% and 18.50% of the energy needed for the operation of an ofce building. Considering that buildings become more energy efcient and energy standards imposed in the different countries will result to lower energy consumption in buildings, we conclude that the contribution of the initial embodied energy and environmental parameters (equivalent CO2 and SO2 emissions) of the building materials will become more important

A. Dimoudi, C. Tompa / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2008) 8695

95

in the overall environmental performance of buildings in future. It should be mentioned that this study was based on data from the international literature and many gures may change in the existence of national, more representative data on the embodied energy and the environmental parameters for the materials and manufacturing processes applied in Greece. It is evident that national data may differ between different countries as the components involved in estimation of the environmental attributes like primary material sources, transportation, manufacturing processes, energy production may signicantly affect the absolute gures of embodied energy and equivalent emissions. As mentioned in previous studies as well, published studies provide a guide to typical ranges of the initial embodied energy of buildings and it is difcult to interpret and compare the studies because of lack of detailed pieces of information on the origins of each material estimations. Comparison between different studies is not always straightforward as the components included in the embodied energy estimation may differ between the studies e.g. some studies apart from the structure and envelope incorporate relevant estimations for site work, services and construction for the building. Thus, it gets difcult to explain the differences between estimated values, given the limited description of what constitutes the parts of estimations in the different case studies. It should be also stressed that construction practices differ from country to country, especially between different continents. Variation in estimated values can also be attributed at the different materials used in different construction practices, different data used for the same material (e.g. for embodied energy, density), on the denition of the different construction components taken into account in the analysis, on the size of the building and the structure (e.g. existence or not of underground parking). The materials choice in the construction of buildings is determinant for the energy required for the construction of buildings and for the environmental implications. Contemporary materials used in modern buildings (e.g. aluminium panels) are more energy intensive and with higher environmental emissions. For given construction practice, the buildings total embodied energy is proportional to the amount of the material used and to the value of the materials embodied energy. Therefore, the rst priority should be the choice of construction practices which save quantities of material. This priority is valid, especially for the reinforced concrete, because of its very high participation in the buildings embodied energy and correspondingly in the entire building values of the equivalent CO2 and SO2 and given the fact that buildings in Greece are mainly built of reinforced concrete. Also priority should be the use of building elements with low embodied energy and equivalent pollutant emitters (CO2 , SO2 ). Among materials with comparable properties, one must choose not only the material with the lower embodied energy but also with the lower environmental impact. As far as construction practices are concerned, additional criteria should be considered like the lifetime of building materials, the compatibility of the lifetime among the layers building materials, the kind of assembly of different materials and of the different layers, their maintenance needs over the building life cycle. In the existence of available data of the embodied energy of innovative materials, like cooling materials, the assessment of the overall energy performance of buildings will also give valuable results. References
Akbari H, Davis S, Dorsano S, Huang J, Winert S. Cooling our communitiesa guidebook on tree planting and white colored surfacing. 1992. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ofce of Policy Analysis. Climate Change Division.

Arena AP, de Rosa C. Life cycle assessment of energy and environmental implications of the implementation of conservation technologies in school buildings in MendozaArgentina. Build Environ 2003;38:35968. Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R. Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build Environ 2007;42:13914. Berge B. The ecology of building materials. Oxford, UK: Architectural Press; 2000, ISBN 0-7506-5450-3. Bikas D, Milonas S. Evaluation of construction solutions of the external envelope of buildings based on environmental criteria. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. HELECO 99Environmental technologies for the 21st century; 1999 (June). p. 4307 [In Greek]. Bikas D. Environmental parameters at the life cycle of buildings. Sci Issue Build J A 2001:1321 [In Greek]. Borjesson P, Gustavsson L. Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus concrete from lifecycle and forest landuse perspectives. Energy Policy 2000;28(9):57588. Buchanan AH, Honey BG. Energy and carbon dioxide implications of building construction. Energy Build 1994;20:20517. Buchanan AH, Levine SB. Wood-based building materials and atmospheric carbon emissions. Environ Sci Policy 1999;2(6):42737. Campogrande D. The European construction industryfacts and trends. In: In: Proc. ERA Convention, European Construction Industry Federation (FIEC); 2007. Centre for Building Performance Research, Victoria University of Wellington (Andrew Alcorn & Peter Wood (Eds.)), New Zealand Building Materials Embodied Energy Coefcients Database, Volume II-Coefcients; November 1998, http://www.vuw.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-coefcients.pdf. Cole RJ, Kernal PC. Life cycle energy use in ofce buildings. Build Environ 1996;31(4):30717. Emmanuel R. Estimating the environmental suitability of wall materials: preliminary results from Sri Lanka. Build Environ 2004;39:125361. Feist W. Life-cycle energy balances compared: low-energy house, passive house, self-sufcient house. In: In: Proc. Int. Symp. CIB W67; 1996. p. 18390. Gaglia A, Balaras C, Mirasgedis S, Georgopoulou E, Saradis Y, Lalas D. Empirical assessment of the Hellenic non-residential building stock, energy consumption, emissions and potential energy savings. Energy Convers Manage 2007;48:116075. Gonzlez MJ, Navarro JG. Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the construction eld through the selection of materials: practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact. Build Environ 2006;41(7):9029. Goverse T, Hekkert MP, Groenewegen P, Worrell E, Smits REHM. Wood innovation in the residential construction sector; opportunities and constraints. Resour Conserv Recycl 2001;34(1):5374. Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Build Environ 2006;41(7):94051. Koch P. Wood versus non-wood materials in US residential construction: some energy-related global implications. For Prod J 1992;42(5):3142. Kospomoulos P. Environmental design. 2nd ed. Thessaloniki, Greece [In Greek]: University Studio Press; 2004. Lenzen M, Treloar G. Embodied energy in buildings: wood versus concretereply to Borjesson and Gustavsson. Energy Policy 2002;30:24955. Papadopoulos A, Giama E. Environmental performance evaluation of thermal insulation materials and its impact on the building. Build Environ 2007;42:217887. Perez-Garcia J, Lippke B, Briggs B, Wilson J, Bowyer J, Meil J. The environmental performance of renewable building materials in the context of residential constrcution. Wood Fiber Sci 2005;37:317. Petersen AK, Solberg B. Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between wood products and alternative materials: a review of micro-level analyses from Norway and Sweden. For Policy Econ 2005;7(3):24959. Santamouris M. Heat island research in EuropeThe state of the art. Adv Build Energy Res (ABER) 2007;1:12350. Santamouris M, Argiriou A, Dascalaki E, Balaras C, Gaglia A. Energy characteristics and savings potential in ofce buildings. Sol Energy 1994;52(1):5966. Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P. Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building. Energy Build 2003;35(10):104964. Synnefa A, Santamouris M, Akbari H. Estimating the effect of using cool coatings on energy loads and thermal comfort in residential buildings in various climatic conditions. Energy Build 2007;39(11):116774. Thormark C. A low energy building in a lifecycleembodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential. Build Environ 2002;37(4):42935. Thormark C. The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling potential of a building. Build Environ 2006;41(8):101926. Treloar G, Fay R, Love PED, Iyer-Raniga U. Analysing the life-cycle energy of an Australian residential building and its householders. Build Res Inf 2000;28(3):18495. Tompa Ch, 2005. Environmental friendly construction materials. MSc Dissertation, Hellenic Open University, Patra, Greece.[In Greek]. Tompa Ch, Dimoudi A. Comparison of the environmental performance of different constructions at buildings. In: In: Proc. 24th Int. Conf. PLEA 2007 on Sustainable Architecture & Urban Design, Singapore vols. 2224; November; 2007. p. 326, ISBN 978-981-05-9400-8. Venkatarama Reddy BV, Jagadish KS. Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies. Energy Build 2003;35:12937. Winter BN, Hestnes AG. Solar versus green: the analysis of a Norwegian row house. Sol Energy 1999;66(6):38793.