Control CO2 emission from residential building

BUILDING SCHEME FOR
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING FOR THE
GLOBAL WARMING MITIGATION
PHD DISSERTATION DEFENCE
ALI TIGHNAVARD BALASBANEH
17-April-2014

INTRODUCTION
• Material selection from residential buildings in designer knowledge in not
only about selecting the strongest, less cheapest or most famous material
which advertise by companies. Designer also may choose environmental
friendly or local materials for residential buildings sector.
• Although the material option might not be limited to these consideration
and some others factor such as weather or high humidity effect the
decision process. The current study for selection the right material will
consider all the possibilities and condition to choosing the right material
for Malaysian construction.

INTRODUCTION
• Mitigation and reducing of the greenhouse gas emissions from
building segment must be an appropriate decision of every
nation especially the countries that collaborate on CCPI list
which Malaysia is one of those countries.
• If the consequent of climate change cannot be control
appropriately on the right moment then it is possible to head to
irreversible direction of environmental disaster.

Problem statement
• Residential building is responsible for more than 40 percent of
global energy use, and as much as one third of global
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
• The Malaysian ranking on the Climate Change Performance
Index (CCPI) has ranked Malaysian’s a “very poor” country
due to release CO2 emission. Therefore, this study is to
revaluate this ranking through the residential sector of building
construction in Malaysia.

Aim of approach
• The major aim of this study is to made a certified review on several
of buildings materials built into a building scheme to find out which
building scheme of construction will consumes less energy and
release less greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. An environmental
aspect of emission of construction of building scheme activity is
assessed to find its environmental impacts.

Objective of the research
• The study determined the environmental impacts on the building
scheme, which was a different material for construction. This study
is founded on a specific building system element of walls and roof
in more than 50 year lifespan.
• To Conduct an scheme analysis on a homogeneous building
(building that mostly uses a single material for construction) to a
complex building scheme (building uses a different material inside a
single building) over a long lifespan of more than 50 years.

Objective of the research (cont’)
• Calculate the contribution of each building material in the
components of walls and roofs to the environmental impacts
and emissions.
• Determine the environmental impact on each building scheme
(a case study) to the climate change effect.

Objective of the research
• Provide and suggest the new building scheme that are more
environmental friendly that has the building material with less
energy use and have less environmental impacts.

Scope of the study
• The scope of this study covers the life cycle of construction
process of fabrication and erection of seven different building
schemes on same building plan, but using different materials
or material combinations which currently has been use for
construction in Malaysia.

Methodology Of Study
• Life-cycle assessment is a concept and methodology that have
been developed to analyze the consequences of human activities
on the environment.
• The discussion starts with an exploration of the life cycle
assessment (LCA) methodology that has been used for calculating
the emissions released into the environment through the whole
process of building construction and demolition phase. The
research is in compliance to ISO 14040 standard of LCA
methodologies.

Methodology Of Study
• Data were processed by using one of the commercial LCA
software’s SIMAPRO 7.3.3. The IPCC 2007 method (IPCC
method) for LCIA was employed to assess the carbon
footprint, which is expressed in terms of Global Warming
Potential of 20 years, 100 and 500 years.

Fig1:Methodology Life cycle phase

Construction cause climate change
• There are 5 types of rating allocated for CCPI namely: very good,
good, moderate, poor and very poor.
• Malaysia is in number 51 out of 58 which is poor in comparison to
Japan or Singapore. Malaysia is proved poorly control the CO2
emission.
• Construction and manufacturing is the fundamental key to control
and decrees the emission and to reduce CO2 content in the
environment.
• Hence the Malaysia situation to control the CO2 emission has
determined as “very poor”.

Construction cause climate change
• Fig2. CCPI ranking
Malaysia’s consumption of
natural resources rates is
amongst the highest in the
region of the world. One sector
that appears to be putting an
effort in these challenges is the
building sector. Buildings and
the built environment contribute
significantly to greenhouse gas
emissions and hence the needs
for better designs are needed to
reduce the overall contribution
of the sector to the climate
change.

Literature review
• Building sector have an opportunity to control and reduce the
climate change both in choosing the most preferable material
for building scheme and control the energy usage during the
building life span.
• The Sustainable Buildings & Climate Initiative (UNEP-SBCI,
2009) declare that needed to reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions by at least 50% to avoid the worst-case scenarios of
climate change in the next forty years (by 2050).

Literature review
• Leif Gustavsson et al (2006) studied about a method is
suggested to compare the net carbon dioxide (CO2) emission
from the construction of concrete- and wood-framed buildings.
• The methodology applied on two building in in Sweden and
Finland constructed with wood frames and with functionally
equivalent buildings with concrete frames.
• The results indicated that wood-framed construction requires
less energy, and emits less CO2 to the atmosphere, than
concrete-framed construction.

Literature review
• Monteiro, H et al (2012) study is compare the results of three life-
cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods –CED (cumulative energy
demand), for primary energy accounting; CML 2001 (Institute of
Environmental Sciences of Leiden University) and EI’99 (Eco-
indicator’99), for multiple environmental impacts –to determine the
extent to which the results of a life-cycle assessment are influenced
by the method applied.
• The result revealed that the wood-wall is the preferable Solution For
building due to have a minimum effect on environment. Indeed all
the tree methods in this study indicate that wood wall is the
preferable solution.

Result and Discussion
• In this research, the main life-cycle processes affected by the
building envelope (material production and transport, maintenance)
have been characterized in terms of energy and environmental
impacts.
• Not included is the energy requirement of other operation-phase
activities (electric appliances, lighting, cooking, domestic hot water)
since it is not affected by the wall solution (Helena Monteiro et al
2012).

• There are two types of building assessed in this study in holistic
views, First industrial building system (IBS) building and
second conventional buildings.
• The industrial building system comprises timber prefabrication,
precast concrete, block work system and steel framing systems.
Other types including brick house, brick and timber house,
brick and concrete house.
• The seven different building schemes are namely:

• Precast Light Weight Block Load Bearing System (H1)
• Brick & Concrete House (H2)
• Conventional Total Brick Load Bearing System ( H3)
• Precast concrete of post, column and wall panels ( H4)
• Prefabricated Steel Framing and gypsum panel (H5)
• Brick Exterior Load Bearing and Interior Timber
Prefabricated (H6)
• Prefabricated Post, Beam Timber and wall panels (H7)

Fig3: Schematic model of typical the
single-family house.
Fig4: Schematic model of interior
of buildings

• In this section, environmental results are presented. The result
of seven schemes are to determine to which one has a less
burden on the environment that releasing less emission during
their life span.
• Secondly, it compares and represents the result of three
different roofing materials toward the same aim.
• Finally, a selected of a new material for walls that have
released less emission is made by removing the negative
points of wall structure

Method Unit H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7
IPCC GWP
20a
KG CO2 2.07E+04 6.71E+03 1.21E+04 7.19E+03 1.68E+04 4.10E+03 4.19E+02
IPCC GWP
100a
KG CO2 1.93E+04 6.37E+03 1.15E+04 6.91E+03 1.68E+04 3.88E+03 3.85E+02
IPCC GWP
500a
KG CO2 1.88E+04 6.23E+03 1.12E+04 6.79E+03 1.67E+04 3.80E+03 3.68E+02
Table 1: comparison of seven different walls schemes for 20, 100 and 500 years. Note: IPCC GWP 20a
represent global warming emission for 20 years, IPCC GWP 100a represent global warming potential for 100
years and IPCC GWP 500a IPCC GWP 500a for 500 years.
Comparison of seven different walls scheme

0.00E+00
5.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.50E+04
2.00E+04
2.50E+04
H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7
KGCO2
IPCC GWP 20a IPCC GWP 100a IPCC GWP 500a
Fig5: Climate change analysis results for 7 building scheme Block work(H1), Brick &
concrete(H2), Brick(H3), precast(H4), Steel(H5), Timber & Brick(H6 and timber(H7)

• Consequently based on the result of life cycle assessment
by IPCC GWP timber house is most preferable building
to the environment that provide less CO2 emission
during its life cycle.

Comparison of roof scheme
• To recommend a new building scheme which represents the best
environmentally building by using materials in the market, this
study also suggest the best roofing scheme for building besides the
best preferable materials for walls.
• There are three different roofing scheme has been compared in the
view of life cycle within 50 years. R1 represent the wood roof with
concrete roof tile scheme, R2 represent as steel gauge roof with
concrete roof tile scheme and Wood with Fiber Cement Roof Slate
R3.

steel gauge roof scheme wooden roof

Method Unit R1 R2 R3
IPCC GWP 20a KG CO2 3.10E+03 5.64E+03 2.13E3
IPCC GWP 100a KG CO2 2.94E+03 5.48E+03 2E3
IPCC GWP 500a KG CO2 2.88E+03 5.42E+03 1.95E3
Table2: Climate change comparison of roofs for 20, 100 and 500 years.

0.00E+00
1.00E+03
2.00E+03
3.00E+03
4.00E+03
5.00E+03
6.00E+03
R1 R2 R3
KGCO2
Fig6: Climate change analysis results for 3 roof scheme, wooden truss roof
(R1), steel gauge roof (R2), Wood with Fiber Cement Roof Slate (R3) (20,
100 and 500 years CO2 emission)

• The result from above Figure shows that wood truss structure
with Fiber Cement Roof Slate (R3) is more environmentally
friendly components for residential building, the steel truss
release more emission on global warming than wood truss.
• It can also estimate that the timber building scheme of post
beam (H7) and wood truss roof (R3) are an ideal combination
of the component and material for sustainable residential
building in Malaysia.

Design Building Structure to Meet
Climate Change Challenges
• Although there are a vast number of reasons of why timber frame is
an ideal method of construction such as met the environmental
issues and zero carbon , thermal efficiency, speed of construction ,
design flexibility but timber house in Malaysia is consider as
forgettable house scheme and there is no attention to encourage house
maker to use of timber frame or any kind of timber house in Malaysia.
• There are so many building companies and house-maker that prefer
use the alternative material for housing then timber house due to
economic reason.

Climate Change Challenges (cont’)
• Malaysia's climate due to its location in the tropics between latitudes 1°
and 7° North and longitudes 100° to 119° East can be classified as
tropical clematises high temperatures, high humidity and heavy rainfall
that lead to timber defects and deterioration.
• Peninsular Malaysia in 1970 shows that the timber had been used more
extensively on building construction in Malaysia until 1970. However
beyond 1970s it has been replaced by concrete, brick and block.
• Timber defect is the most reason for this change.
• According to Burden (2004), defects on timber refer to an improper
condition that affects the structure, leading to failures or low performance
and utilisation of building.
•

Climate Change Challenges
• Che, A.I. (2009) evaluated the timber defects for traditional
houses. The defect on timber frame has divided to four
categories in this study which namely: insect, fungal,
weathering, mechanical failure.
• Survey, the element of roof beam at staircase area is found to
have the serious defects cause by fungal infestation.
• The second serious defect cause by the fungal infestation,
and located behind the area of defected roof beam which is
responsible for load bearing. The roof beam which is the
serious defects among 12 others components.

• Depending on the size of the beam and the type of wood used, splits
can weaken beams significantly and thus affect the integrity of the
structure. If the split starts to increase in width or length, then it is a
definite sign that the beam is giving way and remedial measures
must be adopted immediately. So this is the beginning of the
problem because it is not easy to replace and exchange the beam on
every building and any structures, meanwhile its cost profoundly for
the house owner. In this situation mostly has been advised to
demolish the structure.

Split
• The most problems related to
timber house in occurred on
beam and will effect of
structure stability. Common
problem encountered in wood
beams is their tendency to
split over a time.
• splits when used in
construction as wood beam.

• The other negative point of wood beam is low strength in
Load-carrying capacity on multi-story building.
• Having a low load-carrying capacity makes timber beam
vulnerable against burden and make it spin during the use
phase. Changing and replacing of beams is quietly hard
work and can be impossible in high structures building.
Meanwhile even to change a single wood beam may cost
huge in economic point of house owner.

New Building Scheme 1 : Precast Concrete
Frame and Timber Wall
• As mentioned above, timber house has some disadvantage on
material strength and defective. Thus, in this section propose an
alternative material for timber house to cover the problem while
the new building structure still has a less effect on global warming.
The first alternative building comprising of precast reinforcement
concrete with wood walls.
• This research would announced and suggest a new approach to
replace the wood beam by alternative material and components
which can removed this negative impact of timber house and make
it reliable house for residence during the residency.

Frame beam & column and Timber Wall (cont’)
 Scheme 1 : Precast Concrete Frame and Timber Wall

Table 3 : Climate change emission from timber panel and precast concrete frame for 20, 100 and 500
years.
Method Unit Total Wood Precast Screw
IPCC GWP 20a KG CO2 611 155 371 85.6
IPCC GWP 100a KG CO2 581 145 357 79.1
IPCC GWP 500a KG CO2 569 142 351 75.8

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
KGCO2
wood precast screw
Figure 8 Climate change analysis results for timber panel and precast concrete frame (20,
100 and 500 years CO2 emission)

New building Scheme 2 : Steel-Wood
Frame and Timber wall
• This structure comprises the wood wall and wood post &
beam; however the steel sheet attached to post & beam to
increase the stability of the structure. Because if any damage
happened to their structure a timber frame undergoing major
repairs.

Frame and Timber wall (cont’)
 Figure 9 Scheme 2 : Steel-Wood Frame and Timber wall

Table 4 : Climate change emission from Steel-Wood Frame and Timber wall for
20, 100 and 500 years
Method Unit total wood screw steel stud bolt
IPCC GWP 20a KG CO2 1.34E+03 192 107 1.02E+03 18.9
IPCC GWP 100a KG CO2 1.32E+03 180 98.7 1.02E+03 17.5
IPCC GWP 500a KG CO2 1.31E+03 176 94.6 1.02E+03 16.8
New building Scheme 2 : Steel-Wood Frame
and Timber wall (cont’)

Fig 10: Climate change analysis results Steel-Wood Frame and Timber wall (20, 100 and
500 years CO2 emission)
0.00E+00
2.00E+02
4.00E+02
6.00E+02
8.00E+02
1.00E+03
1.20E+03
1.40E+03
1.60E+03
KGCO2
steel stud wood screw Bolt
New building Scheme 2 : Steel-Wood Frame
and Timber wall (cont’)

Frame and Timber wall (cont’)
• As figure shows that the most effect on global warming by
timber house covered beam & column by steel occurred by steel
stud. The advantage of using the model is steel surrounded the
wood and can be used for much longer spans, heavier loads, and
complex shapes.

New Building Scheme 3 : Combination of
Interior Timber Wall and Exterior Precast Wall
• In order to minimization of negative impact of construction to
climate change the model three has been suggested. Model three
has combined of precast concrete for exterior wall and timber
prefabrication for interior walls.

New Building Scheme 3 : Combination of Interior
Timber Wall and Exterior Precast Wall (cont’)
Figure 11 : Steel-Wood Frame and Timber wall

Table 5 : Climate change emission from exterior concrete wall with interior wood wall for
20, 100 and 500 years.
Method Unit Total Precast Wood Screw
IPCC GWP 20a KG CO2 3.71E3 3.54E3 99.2 70.8
IPCC GWP 100a KG CO2 3.56E3 3.4E3 93.1 65.4
IPCC GWP 500a KG CO2 3.5E3 3.35E3 90.8 62.7

Figure 11 Climate change analysis results exterior concrete wall with interior wood wall (20, 100 and 500 years
CO2 emission)
3.10E+03
3.20E+03
3.30E+03
3.40E+03
3.50E+03
3.60E+03
3.70E+03
3.80E+03
KGCO2
Precast wood screw

Selection Construction System and Comparison
of Existing Building and New Models Building
• Thus, this research has proposed new building schemes that however
have a low CO2 emission to atmosphere but also is adjusted to
Malaysian weather and have a higher life expectancy and don’t need to
change or replace the structure with a new material.
• The new building schemes are respectively Precast Concrete Frame and
Timber Wall (H8), Steel-Wood Frame and Timber wall (H9),
Combination of Interior Timber Wall and Exterior Precast Wall (H10).

Selection Construction System and Comparison of
Existing Building and New Models Building
Method Unit H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H8 H9 H1
IPC
CGWP
20a
KG
CO2
2.07E+04
6.71E+03
1.21E+04
7.19E+03
1.68E+04
4.10E+03
611
1.34E+03
3.71E3
IPC
CGWP
100a
KG
CO2
1.93E+04
6.37E+03
1.15E+04
6.91E+03
1.68E+04
3.88E+03
581
1.32E+03
3.56E3
IPC
CGWP
500a
KG
CO2
1.88E+04
6.23E+03
1.12E+04
6.79E+03
1.67E+04
3.80E+03
569
1.31E+03
3.5E3

Selection Construction System and Comparison of
Existing Building and New Models Building
0.00E+00
5.00E+03
1.00E+04
1.50E+04
2.00E+04
2.50E+04
H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H8 H9 H10
KGCO2
IPCC GWP 20A IPCC GWP 100A IPCC GWP 500A
Figure 12: Climate change analysis results comparison of all new building
scheme with existing building scheme (20, 100 and 500 years CO2 emission)

CONCLUSION & RESEARCH OUTCOME (CONT”)
• The new schemes that represent in this research have improving the
structure defection by applying and combining the right material on
schemes of building. The new schemes also have less effect on
climate change to comparisons by six others current schemes of
Malaysian construction and meanwhile has removing the defection of
timber beam in the structure. If the timber beam and other
components of structure can have longer life expectancy which can be
up to 100 years then it can encourage the private and government
sector to use of wood component instead on current construction
industry.

CONCLUSION & RESEARCH OUTCOME (CONT”)
• The result reveal that the three new schemes namely: Precast Concrete
Frame and Timber Wall (H8), Steel-Wood Frame and Timber wall (H9),
Combination of Interior Timber Wall and Exterior Precast Wall (H10)
represent the most beneficial environmental schemes for building sector
in Malaysia and meantime the defection of timber has been removed by
replacing others material in the structure or increasing of strength in
structure.

Future Research Suggestion
• Another study can be accomplished in this issue that assess
above study in lifecycle cost point. Life cycle cost has been
another issue that always took place for the house owner and
stockholder. The future study can estimate whether the
suggested building can be suitable in cost point or others
traditional buildings.

CONFERENCE and JOURNALS PUBLICATION
• 1-Ali tighnavard balasbaneh, ABDUL KADIR BIN MARSONO,( 2011) HOT & HUMID CLIMATE
AIR FLOW STUDY AND AFFECT OF STACK VENTILATION IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING,
IPCBEE vol.12 (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore.
• 2- Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh, Abdul Kadir Bin Marsono, ( 2012) Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment
of a Single Family House in Malaysia: Assessing Two Alternative IBS Frames International Journal of
Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 11, November
2012).
• 3- Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh ,Abdul Kadir Bin Marsono, (2013) Life Cycle Assessment of IBS in
Malaysia and Comparing Human Health on Timber and Concrete Pre-cast Research Journal of Applied
Sciences, Engineering and Technology 6(24): 4697-4702, 2013.
• 4- Ali Tighnavard Balasbaneh, Abdul kadir Bin Marsono(2013) Life Cycle Assessment of Brick and
Timber House and Effects on Climate Change in Malaysia TextRoad Publication .J. Basic. Appl. Sci.
Res., 3(9)305-310, 2013.

References
• Antti Säynäjoki, et al (2011). Residential Area Building Project’s Carbon
Emissions with the Hybrid LCA Approach, IPCBEE vol.6 IACSIT Press.
• Adalberth, K. (1997). Energy Use During the Life Cycle of Single-Unit
Dwellings: Examples, Building and Environment 32 (4) 321–329.
• Audenaerta, A. et al (2012). LCA of Low-Energy Flats Using the Eco-indicator
99 Method: Impact of Insulation Materials, Energy and Buildings 47, 68–73.
• Barbara, R., and Anne-Françoise, M. (2012). Sigrid Reiter, Life-cycle
Assessment of Residential Buildings in Three Different European Locations,
Case Study, Building and Environment 51,402e407.
• Barnthouse, L., et al (1997). Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry. Life Cycle Impact Assessment: The State-of-the-Art.

References
• Beatriz, R. B.et al (2010). Energy use, CO2 emissions and waste throughout the life cycle
of a sample of hotels in the Balearic Islands, Energy and Buildings 42,547–558.
• Bengtsson, J., and Howard, N. (2010). A Life cycle Assessment, Part 1: classification and
characterization.
• Boustead, I., and Hancock, G.F. (1979). Handbook of Industrial Energy Analysis.
Chichester: Ellis Hardwood and New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0-470-26492-6.
• Blengini. G, A., and Carlo, T, D. (2008). Energy-saving Policies and Low-Energy
Residential Buildings: an LCA Case Study to Support Decision Makers in Piedmont
(Italy), 15(7):652-665.
• Bowyer, J. L., et al (2007), Forest Products and Wood Science, An Introduction (5th
edition), Blackwell Publishing, USA.
• Bribián. I.Z. et al (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative
analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency
improvement potential, Building and Environment 46, 1133e1140.

References• Caroline, D. et al (2010). Using Life Cycle Assessment to Derive an Environmental Index for Light-Frame
Wood Wall Assemblies, Volume 45, Issue 10, Pages 2111–2122.
• Chau, C.K. et al (2012). Assessment of CO2 emissions Reduction in High-Rise Concrete Office Buildings
Using Different Material Use Options, Volume 61, April 2012, Pages 22–34.
• Changyoon Kim, et al (2013). On-site Construction Management Using Mobile Computing Technology,
Volume 35, November 2013, Pages 415–423.
• CHE-Ani A.I.et al (2009). Timber Defects In Building: A Study of Telapak Naning, Malacca, Malaysia,
Issue 1, Volume 5.
• Consoli, F., et al (1993). Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Guidelines for Life Cycle
Assessment: A ‘Code of Practice.’
• Curran, M.A. (ED) (1996). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment. ISBN 0-07-015063-X, McGraw-Hill.
• Curran, M.A. et al (2005). “International Workshop on Electricity Data for Life Cycle Inventories.” Journal
Cleaner Production. 13(8), pp 853-862.
• Dongwei, Yu, et al (2011). A Future Bamboo Structure Residential Building Prototype in China: Life cycle
Assessment of Energy Use and Carbon Emission, Energy and Buildings 43, 2638–2646.

References
• Dongwei Yu, et al (2011). A Future Bamboo-Structure Residential Building Prototype in China: Life cycle
Assessment of Energy Use and Carbon Emission, Energy and Buildings 43,2638–2646.
• Environmental Protection Agency, (2003). Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other
Environmental Impacts (TRACI): User’s Guide and System Documentation. EPA 600/R-02/052. National
Risk Management Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
• Environmental Protection Agency (1995). Guidelines for Assessing the Quality of Life Cycle Inventory
Analysis. EPA/530/R-95/010. Office of Solid Waste. Washington, DC. USA.
• Environmental Protection Agency, (1993). Life Cycle Assessment: Inventory Guidelines and Principles.
EPA/600/R-92/245. Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
• Environmental Protection Agency, (1986). EPA Quality Assurance Management Staff. Development of
Data Quality Objectives: Description of Stages I and II.
• Flórez, L. et al (2009). Optimization Model for the Selection of Materials Using the LEED Green Building
Rating System. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 1162-1170.
• Franc¸oise Nemry, et al (2010). Options to Reduce the Environmental Impacts of Residential Buildings in
the European Union—Potential and Costs, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 976–984.

References• G. Blengini, and T. Di Carlo.(2010). The Changing Role of Life Cycle Phases, Subsystems and Materials in The
LCA of Low Energy Buildings, Energy and Buildings 42 (6) (2010) 869–880.
• Geneva (2006). ISO 14044, Environmental management e Life cycle assessment e Requirements and guidelines.
• Goodwin, J. (2009). Iowa State University, The authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the
manufacture of consensus National Communication Association, Chicago.
• Guidelines to Defra / DECC's GHG (2009). Conversion Factors for Company Reporting Produced by AEA for the
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra).
• Hellas, A., and Udo, d. H.(1993). Applications of Life cycle Assessment: Expectations, Drawbacks and
Perspectives, Centre of Environmental Science, Leiden University, J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 1 Number 3-4.
• Hunkeler, D., et al (2004). Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Life-Cycle Management.
• Hendrickson, C.T. et al (2006). Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services: An Input-Output
Approach. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, ISBN 1-933115-23-8.
• International Standards Organization, (1997). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles
and Framework ISO 14040.
• International Standards Organization, (1998). Life Cycle Assessment - Impact Assessment ISO 14042.
• Ibuchim Ogunkah, and Junli Yang,Investigating (2012). Factors Affecting Material Selection: The Impacts on
Green Vernacular Building Materials in the Design-Decision Making Process.

References
• Ignacio, Z. B.et al (2011). Life cycle Assessment of Building Materials: Comparative Analysis of Energy
and Environmental Impacts and Evaluation of the Eco-Efficiency Improvement Potential, Building and
Environment 46 (2011) 1133e1140.
• Ibuchim Ogunkah, and Junli Yang, (2012). Investigating Factors Affecting Material Selection: The Impacts
on Green Vernacular Building Materials in the Design-Decision Making Process, Buildings 2012, 2, 1-32.
• ISO 14040, (1997). Environmental Management-life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework,
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
• International Standardization Organization, ISO 14040, (2006). Environmental Management Lifecycle
Assessment Principles and Frame Work; Geneva.
• Jeroen, B, et al (1993). Quantitative Life Cycle Assessment of Products, Centre of Environmental Science,
Leiden University, PO Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden,The Netherlands, J. Cleaner Prod. Volume 1 Number 2.
• Jan Burck, Franziska Marten, Christoph Bals , The Climate Change Performance Index Results 2014.
Viewed at February 16, 2013 in http:// www.germanwatch.org.
• Jan Burck, Christoph Bals, Kathy Bohnenberge,The Climate Change Performance Index Results 2012.
Viewed at February 16, 2013 in http://www.germanwatch.org.
• Jan Burck, ey al (2006). The Climate Change Performance Index A Comparison of the Top 53 CO2
Emitting Nations.

References
• Jacob N. Hacker, et al (2008). Embodied and Operational Carbon Dioxide
Emissions from Housing: A Case Study on the Effects of Thermal Mass and
Climate Change, Energy and Buildings 40,375–384.
• Kanghee, Lee. et al (2002). Development of a Life Cycle Assessment Program
for building (SUSB-LCA) in South Korea, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 13, 1994–2002.
• Keoleian, G.A. Set al (2001). Life-Cycle Energy Costs and Strategies for
Improving a Single-Family House, Journal of Industrial Ecology 4 135–156.
• Kyoung-Hee, K. (2011). A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of a
Transparent Composite Façade System and a Glass Curtain Wall System,
Volume 43, Issue 12, Pages 3436–3445.
• Leif Gustavsson, et al (2006). Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution:
Comparing Concrete- and Wood-Framed Buildings, Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 667-691.
• Leif Gustavsson, et al (2010). Life cycle Primary Energy Use and Carbon
Emission of an Eight-Storey Wood-Framed Apartment Building, Energy and
Buildings 42,230–242.

References
• Ljungberg, L.Y. (2007). Materials selection and design for development of sustainable products. Mater.
Des. 2007, 28, 466-479.
• Malaysia IBS International Exhibition (MIIE06), (2006). Development Through IBS Integration. Bi-lingual
Promotional Publication on Industrialized Building Systems Issue 2: ISBN 983-2724-29-5.
• Meadows, D.H. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the
Predicament of Mankind. Universe Books, New York. P. 205.
• Michiya, S., and Tatsuo. T. (1998). Oka , Estimation of life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of
office buildings in Japan, Energy and Buildings 28 ,3341.
• Monteiro, H., and Fausto, F. (2011). Environmental Life-Cycle Impacts of a Single-family House in
Portugal: Assessing Alternative Exterior Walls with two Methods, 24(3):527-534.
• Mohamad, M. K. (2009). Life-Cycle Assessment and the Environmental Impact of Buildings: A Review,
2009, 1, 674-701; doi: 10.3390/su1030674.
• Morel, J.C et al (2001). Building Houses with Local Materials: Means to Drastically Reduce the
Environmental Impact of Construction, Volume 36, Issue 10, December 2001, Pages 1119–1126.
• Monteiro, H., and Freire, F. (2012). Life-Cycle Assessment of A House with Alternative Exterior Walls:
Comparison of Three Impact Assessment Methods, Energy and Buildings 47, 572–583.
• Óscar Ortiz-Rodríguez, et al (2012). Environmental Impact of the Construction and Use of a House:
Assessment of Building Materials and Electricity End-Uses in a Residential Area of the Province of Norte
de Santander, Colombia Ingeniería y Universidad, vol. 16, pp. 147-161.

References
• Rahman, S. et al (2008). A Conceptual Knowledge-based Cost Model of Optimizing the Selection of Materials and
Technology for Building Design. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ARCOM Conference, Cardiff, UK, 1–3 September
2008; Dainty, A., Ed.; pp. 217-225.
• Raniga. U.I, and James Pow. (2012). Chew Wong, Evaluation of whole life cycle assessment for heritage buildings in
Australia, Building and Environment 47, 138e149.
• Seyfang, G (2009). Community action for sustainable housing: Building a low carbon future. Energy Policy 2009a,
doi:10.1016/j.enpol. 2009.10.027.
• Stefania, P. et al (2013). Life Cycle Assessment of a Passive House in a Seismic Temperate Zone, Volume 64, 463–472.
• Vanessa, M. T. (2012). Racine T.A. Prado, Methodology of CO2 Emission Evaluation in the Life Cycle of Office
Building Façades, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41-47.
• Wastiels, L. and Wouters, I (2008). Material Considerations in Architectural Design: A Study of the Aspects Identified
by Architects for Selecting Materials. In Proceedings of the Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference, 2008,
Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 16–19 July 2008.
• Weaver, M.E. (1997). Conserving Buildings: A Manual Techniques and Materials, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York.
• Wen-Hsien Tsai, et al (2011). Incorporating Life Cycle Assessments into Building Project Decision-Making: An Energy
Consumption and CO2 Emission Perspective, Energy 36, 3022-3029.
• Zhuguo, Li. (2006). A new life cycle impact assessment approach for buildings, Building and Environment 41, 1414–
1422.
• Z. Zhanga, et al (2006). BEPAS—a life cycle building environmental performance assessment model, Building and
Environment 41,669–675.

Control CO2 emission from residential building

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Control CO2 emission from residential building

Similar to Control CO2 emission from residential building (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Control CO2 emission from residential building