Carbon Footprint Comparison of Fast Form TM vs Timber Shuttering Fast-Form Ltd Unit 1 Topcat Industrial Estate Estate Road 8 Grimsby DN31 2TG

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Carbon Footprint Comparison of Fast Form TM vs Timber Shuttering Fast-Form Ltd Unit 1 Topcat Industrial Estate Estate Road 8 Grimsby DN31 2TG"

Spencer King
5 years ago
Views:

1 Carbon Footprint Comparison of Fast Form TM vs Timber Shuttering Fast-Form Ltd Unit 1 Topcat Industrial Estate Estate Road 8 Grimsby DN31 2TG Conducted by Paul Horsley & Channa Ranatunga Date: 19/06/2015 A Business Assist Delivered by the GREAT Project The Green, Renewable, Environmental & Associated Technologies - GREAT - Project offers funded business support to Small-to-Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to help improve their revenue, productivity and efficiency. The GREAT Project works within the Humber, East Riding and North & West Yorkshire. The Project is led by the Grimsby Institute Group, delivered in partnership with HCF Ltd and part-funded by the European Regional Development Fund. Disclaimer While The GREAT Project at Grimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education consider that the information and opinions given in this work are sound, all parties must rely on their own skill and judgment when making use of it. The GREAT Project and Grimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education does not make any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this report and assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information. The GREAT Project and Grimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education will not assume any liability to anyone for any loss or damage arising out of the provision of this report The GREAT Project, 114 Bargate, Grimsby, North East Lincolnshire, DN32 5AB ext.

Introduction Green building construction Carbon reduction is a complex challenge for all organisations, not least those in the construction industry.

2 Introduction Green building construction Carbon reduction is a complex challenge for all organisations, not least those in the construction industry. Cradle-to-grave view of the construction sector value chain means, considering all aspects of the design, construction, use and demolition of buildings and infrastructure, beyond simple occupancy itself. Construction companies that can demonstrate legitimate green credentials are now leading the construction sector in the UK. With lucrative projects ranging from large infrastructure to non-domestic new build and refurbishment projects being tendered by the public sector, construction companies are under increasing pressure to deliver in line with both their own industry's targets and the government's wider green ambitions, in order to win contracts. Consequently, working to manage and reduce carbon footprints as part of a low carbon strategy, with its inherent cost benefits and revenue opportunities, is increasingly important in the construction sector. Indirect, carbon The indirect, carbon arises from the extraction of various raw materials, the energy intensive processes associated with the manufacture and delivery of the building materials, and the activities of a multitude of contractors. The selection of raw materials, the extraction, production and transportation of basic construction materials are both energy and carbon-intensive, so it is critical to select suppliers of building products and materials who are actively working to manage their own carbon impacts. Construction phase emissions are another key factors contributing to construction process emissions include the multiple, temporary sites, transportation, waste arising, and heavy machinery which is common in large building projects. These definitions are given for energy but are equally valid when considering carbon (dioxide) emissions. Subtleties in correctly measuring carbon include the sequestration of carbon within building materials such as timber, and the emission (or sequestration) of carbon dioxide through chemical reactions during the production of materials such as cement and the lifetime use of materials such as in the carbonation of concrete. This report compares the construction carbon footprint of the formwork system developed and used by Fast-Form System against a traditional timber custom made formwork system. Traditional Timber custom made formwork system

Fast-Form System show with Plastic Ply facing This report we have tried to provide an unbiased comparison of the two formwork systems, intended to help construction organisations manage carbon

3 Fast-Form System show with Plastic Ply facing This report we have tried to provide an unbiased comparison of the two formwork systems, intended to help construction organisations manage carbon throughout their construction activities by identifying a particular carbon intensive areas which can easily and economically be reduced. Fast-Form developed formwork and traditional Timber and plywood formwork are compared to calculate the amount of CO2 in the materials used. The analysis is performed based on several assumptions. The amount CO2 in transport process and in labour is disregarded in this calculation. It is apparent that information provided or required for this isn t sufficient to be considered in the carbon footprint calculation. The amounts of CO2 in these materials were compared with similar items to attain the correct or closest CO2 figures. The materials used in both systems are taken into account individual basis and these items were only considered if quantity required is one or more. The analysis is compared and calculated for a one year period and results were downscaled to reflect this. The CO2 in each material is considered per kilogram and is multiplied by the weight of the unit. The amount of carbon that after 100% recycling has also been considered, this amount is added onto the total CO2 in each of the unit. Certain quantities of materials are required for both systems over there lifecycle. Therefore total CO2 in a single unit multiplies by the total quantity needed gives the total carbon in the material during its lifecycle. This figure is then can be used to calculate the carbon amount for a single year. Fast Form is compared against Traditional Timber Formwork with Plastic ply and Timber Ply facings.

4 Carbon footprint comparison table Table1. Project Base 20m x 20m x 800mm thick using Fast-Form Brackets & Plastic Ply based on 2 Pour s per week over a one year period. Material description Qty Cost Component lifetime based on 2 uses per week Equivalent Cost per Unit weig ht CO2 per kg Materials CO2 per 100% recycled Embodied per 1 unit for total number of units for the year Type C Bracket years per week 80mm Small Rawl bolt weeks mm Plastic years sheet (2440mm by 1220mm) Box25mm screws weeks L Mould oil week Installation 4 Days N/A N/A 37, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Strip 1 Day N/A N/A 9, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Costs 48, Total Carbon Per 1, Costs are based on Joiners at 180 per day and multiplied by 2 pour s per week, there is no stripping allowed as shutters will last 10 years

5 Table2. Project Base 20m x 20m x 800mm thick using Fast-Form Brackets & Timber Ply based on 2 Pour s per week over a one year period. Material description Qty Cost Component lifetime based on 2 uses per week Equivalent Cost per Unit weight CO2 per kg Materials CO2 per 100% recycled Embodied per 1 unit for total number of units for the year Type C Bracket , years , Purchase 80mm Small Rawl bolt weeks mm Plywood Weeks 5, Wisaform 5, , (2440 x 1220 mm ) Box25mm weeks screws 5L Mould oil week Installation 4 Days N/A 37, , N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Stripping 1 Day N/A 9, , N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Costs 53, Total Carbon Per 2, Costs are based on Joiners at 180 per day and multiplied by 2 pour s per week, there is no stripping allowed as shutters will last 10 years

6 Table3. Project Base 20m x 20m x 800mm thick using traditional Timber and plywood based on 2 Pour s per week over a one year period. Material description 18mm Plywood Wisaform (2440 x 1220 mm ) Qty Cost Component lifetime based on 2 uses per week Equivalent Cost per Unit weight CO2 per kg Virgin Materials CO2 per 100% recycled Embodied per 1 unit for total number of units for the year Weeks , , L Mould oil week mm x 50mm Timber 100mm nails 10kg box 65mm nails 10kg box 520m Weeks 4, , , , N/A N/A Make Up 4 Days N/A 4, , N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Installation 4 Days N/A 74, , N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Stripping 1 Day N/A 9, , N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Strip down old shutters 2 Days N/A 2, , N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total Costs 101, Total Carbon per 15, Costs are based on Joiners at 180 per day and multiplied by 2 pour s per week, make up is based on 8 weeks of use per set as is stripping down of old used shutters, removal from site not calculated.

7 Pie Chart shows KG of Carbon over a One Period:

8 Pie Chart shows KG of Carbon over a One Period:

9 Pie Chart shows KG of Carbon over a One Period:

10 Conclusions It is apparent that the calculation is based on numerous assumptions and several uncertainties due to lack of information. These anomalies are occurring largely due to disregard of CO2 as a result of transportation, and production, although it s has to be said the Fast Form system is a much lighter system overall and as such it is anticipated the Carbon Footprint of the deliveries are also assumed to be lower. However based on available and accessible information carbon footprint calculation is performed by comparing Fast-Form brackets with Traditional Timber and Plywood brackets. Results show a significant difference between the CO2 amounts in each of the system during the unit lifecycle. It is clear that the amount of carbon in Timber and Plywood brackets are up to 10 times more than the amount of the Fast-Form brackets yearly so multiplied by the expected 15 year lifespan of the brackets offers a significant reduction. Even using timber ply with Fast Form instead of Plastic Ply it still offers a huge savings over traditional timber methods with timber using at least 5 times more carbon per year than the Fast Form brackets with Timber ply. Reference 1. UK GHG National UK GHG National Inventory for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: , (2011). National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory [online], 2. Amounts of CO 2 Released when Making & Using Products [online],

BUILDING PRODUCTS DIVISION

BUILDING PRODUCTS DIVISION The following figures show the environmental and social performance data for the Hadley Group - Building Products Division for the period 1 st May 2017 30 st April 2018. Greenhouse