Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 36, Issue 3 (2021)
GeoRes 2021, 36(3): 313-321 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2021/02/18 | Accepted: 2021/03/7 | Published: 2021/06/13
Received: 2021/02/18 | Accepted: 2021/03/7 | Published: 2021/06/13
How to cite this article
Aghakhani S, Haghparast F, Asefi M. Environmental Effects of Concrete, Brick and Wood Usage in Construction on Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions; Case Study of Northwestern Iran. GeoRes 2021; 36 (3) :313-321
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1082-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1082-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran
Abstract (1192 Views)
Aims: Increasing consumption of the earth's primary resources (materials and energy) in addition to the production of environmental and atmospheric pollutants (especially CO2), poses a serious threat to sustainable human life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of using concrete, brick and wood in traditional construction in northwestern Iran on energy consumption and carbon emissions.
Methodology: This quantitative experimental study was conducted during 2015-2020 in two provinces of West- and East Azerbaijan (northwest of Iran). Concrete, brick and wood were selected as the materials studied. For each of the selected materials, 3 factories were selected. Preliminary information on the number of employees, gas input and electricity consumption was obtained from the HSE center of each plant. Data obtained from the survey of industrial units, quantities related to the amount of electricity consumption, the amount of gas consumption, the amount of manpower employed in the production line and in the transportation sector and the amount of diesel fuel used in rail and road transport. Using Revit software for modeling and Energyplus for energy analysis, the average of different industrial units was calculated for each material. Daily energy consumption of manpower was determined according to BMR and PAL according to the type of activity, height and weight dimensions and age.
Findings: The average consumption of electrical energy to produce each ton of cement was 110kw.h, each ton of brick was 35kw.h and each ton of wood was 900kw.h. The total latent energy for the production of each ton of ready-mixed concrete was 559290kw and released 92t of CO2, each ton of produced brick was 283220kw and released 47.5t of CO2 and each ton of timber produced was 7213kw and the released 675kg of CO2.
Conclusion: Despite the long distances due to the lack of gas in the production line, wood is the greenest material and concrete is the most polluting material due to the high dependence of the production line on gas consumption.
Methodology: This quantitative experimental study was conducted during 2015-2020 in two provinces of West- and East Azerbaijan (northwest of Iran). Concrete, brick and wood were selected as the materials studied. For each of the selected materials, 3 factories were selected. Preliminary information on the number of employees, gas input and electricity consumption was obtained from the HSE center of each plant. Data obtained from the survey of industrial units, quantities related to the amount of electricity consumption, the amount of gas consumption, the amount of manpower employed in the production line and in the transportation sector and the amount of diesel fuel used in rail and road transport. Using Revit software for modeling and Energyplus for energy analysis, the average of different industrial units was calculated for each material. Daily energy consumption of manpower was determined according to BMR and PAL according to the type of activity, height and weight dimensions and age.
Findings: The average consumption of electrical energy to produce each ton of cement was 110kw.h, each ton of brick was 35kw.h and each ton of wood was 900kw.h. The total latent energy for the production of each ton of ready-mixed concrete was 559290kw and released 92t of CO2, each ton of produced brick was 283220kw and released 47.5t of CO2 and each ton of timber produced was 7213kw and the released 675kg of CO2.
Conclusion: Despite the long distances due to the lack of gas in the production line, wood is the greenest material and concrete is the most polluting material due to the high dependence of the production line on gas consumption.
Keywords:
References
1. Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R (2007). Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Building and Environment. 42(3):1391-1394. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.11.023]
2. Bahrinezhad A, Khazaeian A (2013). Industrial applications of fast-growing species of poplar and Paulownia species. The Second National Conference on Sustainable Development of Agriculture and Healthy Environment, 12 September 2013, Hemedan, Iran. Tehran: Civilica. [Persian] [Link]
3. Bastos J, Batterman SA, Freire F (2014). Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas analysis of three building types in a residential area in Lisbon. Energy and Buildings. 69:344-53. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.010]
4. Bayer C, Michael G, Gentry R, Surabhi J (2010). AIA guide to building life cycle assessment in practice. Unknown City: AIA. [Link]
5. Bejo L (2017). Operational vs. embodied energy: a case for wood construction. Drvna Industrija. 68(2):163-72. [Link] [DOI:10.5552/drind.2017.1423]
6. Chel A, Tiwari GN (2009). Thermal performance and embodied energy analysis of a passive house - Case study of vault roof mud-house in India. Applied Energy. 86(10):1956-1969. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.12.033]
7. Curran MA (2000). Life cycle assessment: An international experience. Environmental Progress and Sustainable Energy. 19(2):65-71. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/BF02978617]
8. Fava JA, Consoli F, Denison R, Dickson K, Mohin T, Vigon B (1993). A conceptual framework for life cycle impact assessment. Pensacola: Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and SETAC Foundation for Environmental Education. [Link]
9. Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2006). Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and concrete building materials. Building and Environment. 41(7):940-951. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.008]
10. Kam M (2017). Working Group for Sustainable Construction. Zero Carbon Building Journal. 5(2):33-41. [Link]
11. Layton BE (2008). A comparison of energy densities of prevalent energy sources in units of joules per cubic meter. International Journal of Green Energy. 5(6):438-455. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/15435070802498036]
12. Lazarus N (2002). Construction materials report toolkit for carbon neutral developments part 1. London: Beddington Zero (Fossil) Energy Development. [Link]
13. Mateus R, Braganca L (2011). Life-cycle assessment of residential buildings. International Conference Sustainability of Construction. Unknown publisher. [Link]
14. Muñoz C, Zaror C, Saelzer G, Cuchí A (2012). Study of Energy Flow in the life cycle of a housing and its implication on emissions of greenhouse gases, during the construction phase Case Study: Social Typology. Biobío Region of Chile. Revista de La Construcción. 11(3):125-145. [Spanish] [Link] [DOI:10.4067/S0718-915X2012000300011]
15. Ouldboukhitine SE, Belarbi R, Jaffal I, Trabelsi A (2011). Assessment of green roof thermal behavior: A coupled heat and mass transfer model. Building and Environment. 46(12):2624-2631. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.06.021]
16. Paul J, Tretsiakova-McNally S (2010). Sustainable non-metallic building materials. Sustainability. 2(2):400-427. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su2020400]
17. Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla KK (2010). Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energy and Buildings. 42(10):1592-1600. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.007]
18. Roaf S, Fuentes M, Thomas S (2013). Ecohouse: A design guide. Abingdon: Routledge. [Link] [DOI:10.4324/9781315725987]
19. Rogers R (2005). Action of Sustainability. Japanese Architecture. 60:129. [Link]
20. Sartori I, Hestnes AG (2007). Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy and Buildings. 39(3):249-257. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.07.001]
21. SATBA (2016). Renewable energies [Internet]. Tehran: SATBA [cited 2020 April 22] Available from: http://www.satba.gov.ir/. [Persian] [Link]
22. Spielmann M, Bauer C, Dones R (2007). Transport Services. Unknown city: Oxford Scholarship. [Link]
23. Stumpf G, Aurelio M, Kulakowski MP, Breitenbach LG, Kirch F (2014). A case study about embodied energy in concrete and structural masonry buildings. Revista de La Construcción. 13(2):9-14. [Link] [DOI:10.4067/S0718-915X2014000200001]
24. unitconverters.net (2020) [Internet]. Houston: Texas publication; [Unknown Cited]. Available from: [Link]
25. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2020). Greenhouse gas equivalencies calculator [Internet]. Washington: United States Environmental Protection Agency [cited 2019, 3 February]. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator. [Link]
26. Weiqian Z, Tan S, Lei Y, Wang Sh (2014). Life cycle assessment of a single-family residential building in Canada: a case study. Building Simulation. 7(4):429-438. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s12273-013-0159-y]
27. World Health Organization (2000). Preventing and managing the global epidemic [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; [Unknonwn cited]. Available from: https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/obesity/WHO_TRS_894/en/. [Link]
28. Zachariah JL, Kennedy C, Pressnail K (2002). What makes a building green. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management. 2(1-3):38. [Link] [DOI:10.1504/IJETM.2002.000778]
29. Zhang W, Tan S, Lei Y, Wang S (2014). Life cycle assessment of a single-family residential building in Canada: A case study. Building Simulation. 7(4):429-438. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11367-013-0689-7]