Enhancing High Performance Design with Wood

Transcription

1 The Wood Products Council is a Registered Provider with. Credit(s) earned on completion of this program will be reported to AIA/CES for AIA members. Certificates of Completion for both AIA members and non-aia members are available upon request. This program is registered with AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing, or dealing in any material or product. Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation. Copyright Materials This presentation is protected by US and International Copyright laws. Reproduction, distribution, display and use of the presentation without written permission of the speaker is prohibited. The Wood Products Council 2012 Woodworks US Workshops October 31 & Nov Enhancing High Performance Design with Wood Tools, Trends and Innovation

2

3 Performance Based Code? If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then that builder shall be put to death. If it kill the son of the owner, the son of that builder shall be put to death. Kept builders honest Probably stifled innovation Not applicable to their own buildings

4

5

6 Gases in the atmosphere that contribute to elevated atmospheric temperature and global climate. The Carbon Issue Fossil vs. Atmospheric Carbon The Carbon Cycle/ The Carbon Issue Greenhouse Gases (GHG s) Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Methane (CH 4 ) Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O) HFCs CFCs Sulfur hexafluoride

7 The Heat Trapping Efficiency of Various Greenhouse Gases is Not Equal Contributors to Global Warming Heat Trapping Compound Efficiency Compared to Carbon Dioxide Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) 1 Nitrous Oxide Ozone Methane Methane (CH 4 ) 23X Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) 296X Chlorofluorocarbons CO2e HFCs ,000X Carbon Dioxide CFCs 5,700-11,900X Sulfur hexafluoride 22,200X Materials matter now not just in 2030, 2050 or beyond Sequestered Carbon Fossil Carbon Sequestered millions of years ago Atmospheric Carbon Sequestered, released, and re-sequestered as part of ongoing carbon cycle.

8 Photosynthesis SUN O 2 CO 2 H 2 O Sugars (C 5 H 10 O 5 ) n

9

10 Environmental Impact Category Global warming potential (GWP) Acidification potential Eutrophication potential Fossil fuel depletion Water intake Criteria air pollutants Ecological toxicity Human health; non-carcinogenic Human health; carcinogenic Ozone depletion Smog formation potential Energy Accounting Embodied energy; renewable & non-renewable Impact Indicator Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) eq. Hydrogen ion [H + ] eq. Nitrogen (N) eq. Surplus gigajoules (GJ) Litres (L) Disability-adjusted-life-years (DALYs) 2,4-dichlorophenoxy-acetic acid (2,4-D) eq. Toluene (C 7 H 8 ) eq. Benzene (C 6 H 6 ) eq. Chlorofluorocarbon-11 (CFC-11) eq. Nitrogen oxides (NO x ) eq. Indicator Terajoules (TJ) Embodied energy; feedstock & process Terajoules (TJ) Source: Robertson, A.B. A COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF MID-RISE OFFICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES: LAMINATED TIMBER OR REINFORCED CONCRETE Using LCA, we can calculate carbon balances for wood products. CO 2 removal - The C is used to make wood The C balance here is negative CO 2 emissions due to harvesting, manufacturing, transportation - C is transferred to products + Net C is negative: more C is in the product than was emitted to atmosphere in making the product Discovery Place - Building 12 (Bunting Coady Architects, 2007) 14,000 m 2 (153,207 ft 2 ), five-storey, concrete-framed structure, Proposed for Burnaby, B.C.

11 GWP of Concrete and Timber Building Design Alternatives Source: Robertson, A.B. A COMPARATIVE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF MID-RISE OFFICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES: LAMINATED TIMBER OR REINFORCED CONCRETE Net Carbon Emissions in Producing a Tonne 1,2 of: Net Carbon Emissions Material (kg C/metric ton) Framing lumber 33 Medium density fiberboard 60 (virgin fiber) Brick 88 Glass 154 Recycled steel (100% from 220 scrap) Concrete 265 Concrete block 291 Recycled aluminum (100% 309 recycled content) Steel (virgin) 694 Plastic 2,502 Aluminum (virgin) 4,532 25% recycled 100% recycled 1/ Values are based on life cycle assessment and include gathering and processing of raw materials, primary and secondary processing, and transportation. 2/ Source: USEPA (2006).

12 Net Product Life Carbon Emissions CO2: Kg/cubic meter wood eq KD Lumber Plywood OSB no product carbon to store includes carbon stored in product Concrete floor area eq Carbon Credits Due to avoided emissions?

13 Carbon Storage in Structures Equals the CO An average wood 2 generated from frame home stores ~ driving a car for 5 30 tonnes of carbon = years Six story structure (Five stories of wood over podium slab). Combined residential/commercial. 140 condo units 14,000 ft 2 street level commercial 20,000 ft 2 library Underground parking Volume of wood used 2,927 m 3 Carbon sequestered and stored (CO 2 e) 2,124 metric tons Avoided greenhouse gases (CO 2 e) 4,520 metric tons Total potential carbon benefit (CO 2 e) 6,645 metric tons

14 Volume of wood used 4,755 m 3 Carbon sequestered and stored (CO 2 e) 3,771 metric tons Avoided greenhouse gases (CO 2 e) 8,021 metric tons Total potential carbon benefit (CO 2 e) 11,792 metric tons

15 Stadthaus Building, London (Murray Grove) ~ 8,000+ mt CO 2e sequestered ~ 17,500 mt CO 2e avoided Stadthaus Building, London (Murray Grove) Stadthaus Building, London (Murray Grove)

16 Stadthaus Building, London (Murray Grove) Stadthaus Building, London Volume of wood used 950 m 3 Carbon sequestered and stored (CO 2 e) 760 metric tons Avoided greenhouse gases (CO 2 e) 320 metric tons Total potential carbon benefit (CO 2 e) 1,080 metric tons Forest, Product and Substitution Pools (concrete frame vs wood) Forest, Product, Emissions, Displacement & Substitution Carbon by Component Stem Root Crown Litter Dead Chips Lumber HarvEmis ManufEmis Displacement Substitution Metric Tons Per Hectare Forest with Substitution with Products Year

17 Confusing for customers Frustrating for suppliers. May lack transparency Difficult to compare May be single attribute Rarely based on LCA

18 1. Third-party certifications A seal of approval, usually involves a logo. Examples: Green Seal, EcoLogo, Blue Angel, Energy Star, FSC. 2. Self-declarations E.g. 100% recycled ; biodegradable; compostable. Transparent, credible, comparable labels allow purchasers to make informed selections. Non-judgemental. Reduce greenwash in the market place. Environmental Product Declarations, or EPDs, are an environmental version of a food label. EPDs are based on LCA data, are 3 rd -party verified, address multiple criteria and are put together following international protocols. 3. Environmental product declarations Not a certification; a simple statement of footprint 70 facts. EPD Example: Egger OSB EPD Example: Western red cedar products 4-page EPD 10-page EPD

19 Follows ISO standards. Product category: solid wood products. Follows a Norwegian EPD set of rules for that category (the PCR). EPD content was developed by a third party. EPD content was independently verified. EPD was issued by program operator the Norwegian EPD Foundation..

20 Voluntary For now. May become trade barrier. Mandatory in France for high-volume consumer goods Germany requires impact evaluation for buildings Japan and Taiwan moving in that direction. Sweden, Italy, UK, Japan, Korea, China and Australia already have most or all components of an EPD infrastructure in place. Hundreds (thousands?) of EPDs worldwide have been produced. US is partly there with a national database and discussion about national standards. Environmental preferential purchasing (EPP) policies (popular in Europe and the US) would likely adopt an EPD basis when ready. LEED program will reward products with LCA data and/or EPDs. whole-building LCA credit. International (US) Green Construction Code, CalGreen and Ashrae 189 all have an LCA path. Green building thought leaders are calling for better data, transparency, and disclosure (e.g., EPDs). Two big players are aggressively marketing: UL Environment and Scientific Certification Systems. Several US industries are collaboratively moving towards EPDs (hardwood flooring, concrete) in addition to individual companies. Buyers are getting more sophisticated they want proof.

21 millions of hectares certified Canadian Certification in the Global Context 2011 Year-end CANADA USA Russia Sweden Finland Poland Australia Belarus Norway Germany Brazil Sources: as of Dec 31/11 as of Nov 15/11 as of Dec 31/11

22 Forest, Product and Substitution Pools (concrete frame vs wood) Forest, Product, Emissions, Displacement & Substitution Carbon by Component Stem Root Crown Litter Dead Chips Lumber HarvEmis ManufEmis Displacement Substitution % 10% Certified Forests Uncertified Forests Metric Tons Per Hectare Forest with Substitution with Products Year

23 Net Zero Living Building Challenge Passive Innovative Materials/Systems Reduced Thermal Bridging Prefabricated Components Air Change management Insulated but breathable walls Passive & Net Zero High Performance Glazing Energy Conservation / Generation Planning, Planning, Planning.

24 Courtesy: BC Building Enclosure Design Guide Hyper efficient Wood window profile. Low mass, reduced thermal bridging, metal clad, triple pane low-e argon filled. Note interior and exterior gasket placements, drip overhang. Wood Fibre Insulation Products

25 Water test on Wood Fibre Insulation Mass timber wall by Sohm Holzbautechnick Mass timber formed by diagonally inserted oak dowels. Passivhaus performance Potential utilities placement in floor plate for passive design Roof assembly with wood fibre insulation Passive Design Seam detail Pre-fabricated Passive Fascia/ Curtain wall panels for Life Cycle Tower (corner piece)

26

27 Reduce Thermal Bridging

28 Net Zero House Harmony House Architect: Chris Mattock

29

30 Living Building Challenge Van Dusen Botanical Gardens Visitor Centre Architect: Perkins Will

31

32

33