The document summarizes research into the embodied energy of a timber-framed domestic dwelling. Data on the materials, quantities, and embodied carbon were collected from technical drawings and surveys of a timber-framed house design. Embodied energy calculations were performed for each component of the house, including external walls, floors, roof, etc. The results found a total embodied energy of 30,595kgCO2 for the timber-framed house, lower than other structure types. Heavier structures have lower total life-cycle carbon emissions.

1. 1
Timber-framed house Life-cycle investigation
“The use of timber, instead of other construction materials, has the potential
to have a more positive environmental impact on the life-cycle of a domestic
dwelling”. The aim of this report is to investigate the accuracy of this
hypothesis.
Abstract
The environmental impacts of using timber in construction has been
investigated by researching and analyzing the different factors related to
answering the hypothesis.
The designs for a timber-framed domestic dwelling was collected from
‘Southern Timber Frame Ltd’ to calculate the embodied energy. A quantity
survey was undertaken to establish the materials and quantities used to
construct the building, then an analysis of the embodied energy was carried
out. Final results saw an embodied energy of 30,595kgCO2.
This figure was compared with other structures to reveal that embodied energy
increases with the weight of structure. Operational carbon emissions were also
investigated for differing structures to show that this decreases with increasing
weight of structure. The greatest factor influencing total life-cycle emissions
was the operational energy. There is a positive correlation between weight of
structure and total emissions, concluding that heavier-weight structures
produce fewer carbon emissions throughout their life-cycle.

2. 2
Introduction
It is clear that global warming needs to be addressed in order to solve the many
problems attributed to it. Unfortunately, removing the causes of such a
phenomena is easier said than done. It is first necessary to understand what is
causing the climate of planet Earth to heat up at such a rate and then find out
who or what is responsible. Only then can strategies be put in place to reduce
the subsequent effects that are degrading our only habitat.
Limiting our impacts on the environment is vital in order to provide our future
generations a desirable place to live.
Governments have discovered that the global construction industry is
responsible for 30% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, suggesting that this
sector is most responsible.
This paper investigates how we, as a nation, can reduce our carbon footprint by
identifying the stages of construction and materials used that have the greatest
effect on the environment.
The hypothesis that environmental impacts can be reduced by using timber in a
dwelling construction, will be explored.

3. 3
Methodology
To investigate the embodied energy of a timber-framed domestic dwelling by
determining the energy used to manufacture it.
The aim and objectives of the investigation have been outlined. Research
techniques and methods have also been evaluated to ensure the data collected
is relevant and can be analysed appropriately to come to a conclusion. A
description of how the results will be displayed have then been outlined.
Aim
To investigate the embodied energy of a timber-framed domestic dwelling by
determining the energy used to manufacture it.
Objectives
This is primary research, from which, Quantitative data will be collected from a
real-life case study. Local companies that specialize in timber-frame
manufacturing will be contacted to request designs of a domestic dwelling
constructed of timber. Emails will be distributed asking for technical drawings
in an ‘Autodesk AutoCAD’ format to display different layouts. (Appendix B
shows how the results were extracted).
From here, a quantity survey can be undertaken to determine the amount of
each material used within the construction. Further quantitative data on
embodied energy of materials will be collected from the ‘Inventory of Carbon
and Energy’ (ICE) which has been produced by the ‘University of Bath’. This
database provides density figures that have been extracted from the Chartered
Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) guide. Assumptions in the
exact material used may be implemented if there are any limitations in the
collected data.
Results are to be displayed in a table that was created in a ‘Microsoft Excel’
spreadsheet to reveal how each step was calculated. This data can be
compared by using bar charts and pie charts to show which component
produces the most embodied carbon. It will also be important to compare the
embodied carbon and relative mass of the material investigated. This can
determine the relative environmental impact of each material, regardless of
the mass used.
The case study timber-framed house will be divided into six separate
components to help make it simpler to analyse: External walls, Floors, Party
wall, Load-bearing walls, Non load-bearing walls and Roof.
The process used to calculate the embodied energy used is highlighted.

4. 4
Cross-sectionalarea
The first calculation was to determine the cross-sectional area of an element.
The cross-sectional area will be calculated by using the measuring tool on the
technical drawings, or by making assumptions based on appropriate products
that could be used in their place. These products were identified on various
manufacturer websites that contain specifications of their products.
𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐚 ( 𝐦 𝟐) = Width (m) 𝑥 Height (m)
Volume
Calculated by multiplying the cross-sectional area by the length, which was
determined by measuring up the technical drawings.
𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐦𝐞 ( 𝐦 𝟑) = Cross sectional area (m2
) 𝑥 Length (m)
Mass
Determined by multiplying the already calculated volume, by the density
figures collected from the ‘ICE’.
𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐬 ( 𝐤𝐠) = Density (
kg
m3
) 𝑥 Volume (m3
)
Embodied Carbon of item
The embodied carbon of the individual item was calculated by using data from
the ‘ICE database’ and is multiplied by the mass.
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐦𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 ( 𝐤𝐠𝐂𝐎 𝟐) = Embodied carbon (
kgCO2
kg
) 𝑥 Mass (kg)

5. 5
Results
Collected Data
Section

6. 6
GF Soleplate layout

7. 7
FF Soleplate layout

8. 8
GF Wall layout

9. 9
FF Wall layout

10. 10
FF Joist layout

11. 11
Roof layout

12. 12
Section AA

13. 13
Section BB

14. 14
Embodied Energy calculations
External walls
Item Material
Density
(kg/m3
)
U-value
(W/mk)
Cross-
sectional
area (m2
)
Total
volume
(m3
)
Total Mass
(kg)
Relative
Embodied
Carbon
(kgCO2/kg)
Embodied
Carbon of
item
(kgCO2)
CLS Profile Sawn softwood 500 0.12 0.0053 1.89 947.0 0.43 407.2
Soleplate channel Galvanised steel 7850 29 0.0003 0.00 36.7 1.82 66.9
Sheathing Hardboard 600 0.08 0.0090 0.86 518.4 1.23 637.6
Service batten Sawn softwood 500 0.12 0.0010 0.34 169.1 0.43 72.7
Lintel Glulam timber 490 0.12 0.0088 0.32 154.8 0.60 92.9
Breather membrane Polypropylene 950 0.2 0.0006 0.06 54.7 0.24 13.1
Internal lining board Plasterboard 800 0.16 0.0090 0.86 691.2 0.24 165.9
DPC Polyethelene 950 0.7 0.0003 0.01 4.8 8.28 39.3
Nail 1 Galvanised Steel 7850 29 0.0025 - 7.1 1.82 13.0
Nail 2 Galvanised Steel 7850 29 0.0100 - 11.9 1.82 21.6
Insulation Rock wool 60 0.033 - 14.42 865.2 1.16 1003.6
Brick Clay and mortar 1700 0.84 0.1000 12.00 20400.0 0.20 4080.0
Block Concrete block 1350 0.6 0.0210 0.42 567.0 0.14 81.1
Door 1 Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.5292 0.53 370.4 0.46 170.4
Door 2 Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.2940 0.29 205.8 0.46 94.7
Window 1 Double-glazing 140 0.048 0.0015 0.01 1.1 0.76 0.8
Window 2 Double-glazing 140 0.048 0.0013 0.00 0.4 0.76 0.3
Window 3 Double-glazing 140 0.048 0.0005 0.00 0.1 0.76 0.05

15. 15
Party wall
Item Material
Density
(kg/m3
)
U-value
(W/mk)
Cross-
sectional
area (m2
)
Total
volume
(m3
)
Total Mass
(kg)
Relative
Embodied
Carbon
(kgCO2/kg)
Embodied
Carbon of
item
(kgCO2)
CLS Profile Sawn softwood 500 0.12 0.0034 1.03 513.0 0.43 220.6
Soleplate channel Galvanised steel 7850 29 0.0003 0.00 18.4 1.82 33.4
Sheathing Hardboard 600 0.08 0.0090 0.09 54.0 1.23 66.4
Internal lining
board
Plasterboard 800 0.16 0.0090 0.09 72.0 0.24 17.3
Nail 1 Galvanised Steel 7850 29 0.0025 - 0.5 1.82 1.0
Nail 2 Galvanised Steel 7850 29 0.0100 - 5.3 1.82 9.6
Insulation Rock wool 60 0.033 0.1400 8.68 520.8 1.16 604.1
Block Concrete block 1350 0.6 0.1350 1.22 1640.3 0.14 234.6

16. 16
Load-bearing walls
Item Material
Density
(kg/m3
)
U-value
(W/mk)
Cross-
sectional
area (m2
)
Total
volume
(m3
)
Total Mass
(kg)
Relative
Embodied
Carbon
(kgCO2/kg)
Embodied
Carbon of
item
(kgCO2)
CLS Profile Sawn softwood 500 0.12 - 0.32 160.5 0.43 69.0
Soleplate channel Galvanised steel 7850 29 0.0002 0.00 19.0 1.82 34.6
Lintel Glulam timber 490 0.12 - 0.05 26.0 0.60 15.6
Internal lining
board
Plasterboard 800 0.16 0.0090 0.20 158.4 0.24 38.0
Nail Galvanised Steel 7850 29 0.0100 - 3.1 1.82 5.6
Door Sawn softwood 500 0.12 0.0210 0.04 21.0 0.43 9.0

17. 17
Non load-bearing walls
Item Material
Density
(kg/m3
)
U-value
(W/mk)
Cross-
sectional
area (m2
)
Total
volume
(m3
)
Total Mass
(kg)
Relative
Embodied
Carbon
(kgCO2/kg)
Embodied
Carbon of
item
(kgCO2)
CLS Profile Sawn softwood 500 0.12 - 0.74 369.5 0.43 158.9
Nail Galvanised Steel 7850 29 0.0100 - 7.2 1.82 13.1
Soleplate channel Galvanised steel 7850 29 0.0002 0.01 44.9 1.82 81.7
Internal lining
board
Plasterboard 800 0.16 0.0090 0.47 374.4 0.24 89.9
Door 1 Sawn softwood 500 0.12 0.0280 0.06 28.0 0.43 12.0
Door 2 Sawn softwood 500 0.12 0.0260 0.08 39.0 0.43 16.8
Door 3 Sawn softwood 500 0.12 0.0210 0.04 21.0 0.43 9.0

18. 18
Floors
Item Material
Density
(kg/m3
)
U-value
(W/mk)
Cross-
sectional
area (m2
)
Total
volume
(m3
)
Total Mass
(kg)
Relative
Embodied
Carbon
(kgCO2/kg)
Embodied
Carbon of
item
(kgCO2)
JJI Joist Flange Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0042 0.38 266.5 0.46 122.6
JJI Joist Board Hardboard 600 0.08 0.0019 0.17 99.9 1.23 122.9
Header Sawn softwood 500 0.12 0.0093 0.30 149.0 0.43 64.1
Beams Glulam timber 490 0.12 0.0110 0.09 45.8 0.60 27.5
JJI Hangers Galvanised steel 7850 29 - - 1.0 1.82 1.8
Nail 1 Galvanised Steel 7850 29 0.0025 - 1.5 1.82 2.7
Nail 2 Galvanised Steel 7850 29 0.0100 - 5.0 1.82 9.1
DPM Polyethelene 950 0.7 0.0003 0.02 21.1 8.28 174.4
Floorboard Particleboard 750 0.1 0.0220 1.95 1463.6 0.49 717.1
Internal lining
board
Plasterboard 800 0.16 0.0090 0.80 638.6 0.24 153.3
Beam
Pre-cast
concrete
1050 0.32 0.1600 15.00 15750.0 0.22 3386.3
Block
Pre-cast
concrete
1050 0.32 0.3700 34.60 36330.0 0.22 7811.0
Insulation Rock wool 60 0.033 0.1400 12.42 745.1 1.16 864.3
Screed Cement screed 2100 1.4 0.0650 5.77 12107.6 0.22 2712.1

19. 19
Roof
Item Material Density (kg/m3
)
U-value
(W/mk)
Cross-
sectional
area (m2
)
Total
volume
(m3
)
Total Mass
(kg)
Relative
Embodied
Carbon
(kgCO2/kg)
Embodied
Carbon of
item
(kgCO2)
Truss rafter T01 Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0035 0.11 78.4 0.46 36.1
Truss ceiling joist
T01
Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0035 0.08 58.8 0.46 27.0
Truss rafter T02 Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0035 0.25 176.4 0.46 81.1
Truss ceiling joist
T02
Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0035 0.19 132.3 0.46 60.9
Rafter Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0053 0.05 35.0 0.46 16.1
Girder truss GT01 Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0035 0.03 19.6 0.46 9.0
Ridge plate Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0089 0.11 75.0 0.46 34.5
Wall plate Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0035 0.10 71.1 0.46 32.7
Lay board Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0053 0.04 29.8 0.46 13.7
Truss hangers Galvanised Steel 7850 29 - - 1.6 1.82 3.0
Ceiling insulation Rock wool 60 0.033 0.1400 0.63 37.8 1.16 43.8
Breather membrane Polyproplene 950 0.2 0.0003 0.02 17.3 8.28 143.6
Roof tiles Clay 1890 0.8 0.0005 2.11 11500.0 0.43 4945.0
Battens Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0010 0.69 485.5 0.46 223.3
Fascia Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0035 0.08 58.8 0.46 27.0
Soffit Sawn hardwood 700 0.17 0.0035 0.08 58.8 0.46 27.0

20. 20
Summary
Component Embodied Carbon (kgCO2)
External Walls 6961.14
Party wall 1186.97
Load-bearing walls 234.39
Non load-bearing walls 575.12
Floors 16169.10
Roof 5723.89
TOTAL 30595

21. 21
Material Total (kg) %
Total
(kgCO2)
%
Relative Embodied
Carbon per weight
Sawn Softwood 2417.06 2.21 1039.34 3.40 5947.85
Sawn
Hardwood
2122.14 1.94 976.18 3.19 5236.89
Glulam timber 226.58 0.21 135.95 0.44 286.98
Particleboard 1463.55 1.34 717.14 2.34 3144.55
Hardboard 672.30 0.61 826.93 2.70 2907.40
Galvanised
Steel
163.20 0.15 297.03 0.97 451.58
Concrete block 2207.25 2.01 315.64 1.03 2532.89
Pre-cast
concrete
52080.00 47.53 11197.20 36.60 461886.21
Cement screed 12107.55 11.05 2712.09 8.86 36149.42
Clay 11500.00 10.50 4945.00 16.16 91426.77
Rock wool 2168.88 1.98 2515.90 8.22 22858.22
Polyethylene 25.82 0.02 213.76 0.70 175.17
Polypropylene 72.06 0.07 156.69 0.51 152.30
Plasterboard 1934.64 1.77 464.31 1.52 2639.30
Clay and
mortar
20400.00 18.62 4080.00 13.34 74810.16
Double glazing 1.49 0.00 1.13 0.00 1.50
TOTAL 109562.52 100 30594.29 100 710607.18

22. 22
Graphics
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
3000.0
3500.0
4000.0
4500.0
EmbodiedCarbon(kgCO2)
Item
Material Breakdown of Embodied Carbon in External walls

23. 23
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
CLS profile Soleplate channel SheathingInternal lining board Nail 1 Nail 2 Insulation Block
EmbodiedCarbon(kgCO2)
Item
Material Breakdown of Embodied Carbon in Party wall

24. 24
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
CLS
profile
Soleplate
channel
Lintel Internal
lining
board
Nail Door
EmbodiedCarbon(kgCO2)
Item
Material Breakdown of Embodied Carbon in Load-bearing walls

25. 25
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
CLS profile Nail Soleplate channel Internal lining board Door 1 Door 2 Door 3
EmbodiedCarbon(kgCO2)
Item
Material Breakdown of Embodied Carbon in Non Load-bearing walls

26. 26
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0EmbodiedCarbon(kgCO2)
Item
Material Breakdown of Embodied Carbon in Roof

27. 27
0.0
1000.0
2000.0
3000.0
4000.0
5000.0
6000.0
7000.0
8000.0
9000.0EmbodiedCarbon(kgCO2)
Item
Material Breakdown of Embodied Carbon in Floors

28. 28
6961.14
1186.97
234.39
575.12
16169.10
5723.89
Component Breakdown of Embodied Carbon in Timber-framed House(kgCO2)
External Walls Party wall Load-bearing walls Non load-bearing walls Floors Roof

29. 29
1039.34 976.18
135.95
717.14 826.93
297.03 315.64
11197.20
2712.09
4945.00
2515.90
213.76 156.69
464.31
4080.00
1.13
0.00
2000.00
4000.00
6000.00
8000.00
10000.00
12000.00EmbodiedCarbon(kgCO2)
Material
Total Embodied Carbon of Building Materials

30. 30
2417.06 2122.14
226.58
1463.55 672.30 163.20
2207.25
52080.00
12107.5511500.00
2168.88
25.82 72.06
1934.64
20400.00
1.49
0.00
10000.00
20000.00
30000.00
40000.00
50000.00
60000.00Mass(kg)
Material
Total Mass of Building Materials

31. 31
461886.21
36149.42
91426.77
74810.16
Total Mass with Relative Embodied Carbon
Sawn Softwood Sawn Hardwood Glulam timber Particleboard Hardboard Galvanised Steel
Concrete block Pre-cast concrete Cement screed Clay Rock wool Polyethylene
Polypropylene Plasterboard Clay and mortar Double glazing

32. 32
5947.85 5236.89 286.98 3144.55 2907.40 451.58 2532.89
461886.21
36149.42
91426.77
22858.22
175.17 152.30 2639.30
74810.16
1.50
0.00
50000.00
100000.00
150000.00
200000.00
250000.00
300000.00
350000.00
400000.00
450000.00
500000.00
Material
Total Mass with Relative Embodied Carbon

33. 33
Discussion
The overall embodied carbon of the timber framed house was 30,595 kgCO2.
Split up into components, the floors (16,169.1 kgCO2) had the greatest impact
and the internal walls (809.51 kgCO2) had the least. The results table suggests
that this is because the ground floor is composed of pre-cast concrete, which is
responsible for a significant proportion of the overall impact.
Pre-cast concrete, as a material, contributes the most to embodied impact with
11,197.2 kgCO2, which is 36.6% of the total embodied carbon. The clay tiles and
external brickwork are 2nd and 3rd with 4,945 kgCO2 (16.16%) and 4,080 kgCO2
(13.34%) respectively. On the other hand, the double glazing and glulam timber
had the least embodied impact with 1.13 kgCO2 (0.001%) and 135.95 kgCO2
(0.44%) respectively. Other materials with negligible impacts included
polypropylene (156.69 kgCO2), polyethylene (213.76 kgCO2), galvanized steel
(297.03 kgCO2), concrete block (315.64 kgCO2), and plasterboard (464.31
kgCO2).
When the embodied impact of the materials were adjusted to take relative
mass into consideration, pre-cast concrete, clay, cement screed, brickwork and
Rockwool presented the greatest impact. Pre-cast concrete was still the most
significant, with figures of five times greater than clay per unit of mass.
Of all the timber products, sawn softwood (1039.34 kgCO2) had the greatest
embodied impact, then sawn hardwood (976.18 kgCO2), hardboard (826.93
kgCO2), particleboard (717.14 kgCO2) and glulam (135.95 kgCO2). Whenrelative
mass was calculated, Sawn softwood was still the most detrimental towards the
environment of all the timber products. Sawn hardwood, particleboard,
hardboard and glulam followed closely.
Overall, the timber products contributed 12.07% to total embodied impact with
6.31% of the total mass, which suggests they had a greater impact on the
environment per relative unit of mass compared to other materials.
These results do not correlate with the life-cycle assessment that was
undertaken in the first stage. Those results suggested that the hardwood posed
the greatest threat, with sawn softwood the least. This could be because the
life-cycle stages were different, or data was collected from a different source.
However, differences in both investigations were negligible.
Analysis for the different building components will now be discussed.
External walls
The external brickwork (4080 kgCO2) presents the greatest impact for this
component with other significant contributors being the insulation (1003.6

34. 34
kgCO2), OSB sheathing (637.6 kgCO2) and CLS profile (407.2 kgCO2). This is
probably because the brickwork has a large mass compared with the other
materials used.
Party wall
The insulation (604.1 kgCO2) had the biggest embodied impact, probably due to
the amount used in the party wall (520kg). Other materials with significant
impact include block (234.6 kgCO2) and the CLS Profile (220.6 kgCO2).
Load-bearing walls
The CLS profile saw the greatest impact (69 kgCO2), with the internal lining
board (38 kgCO2) and soleplate channel (34.6 kgCO2) being other significant
contributors.
Non load-bearing walls
The same three materials contributed the most to this building component. CLS
profile (158.9 kgCO2), internal lining board (89.9 kgCO2) and soleplate channel
(81.7 kgCO2).
Floors
The concrete block (7811 kgCO2) and beam (3386.3 kgCO2) were the greatest
contributors in the flooring, with screed (2712.1 kgCO2) closely following.
Roof
The clay tiles were the only material that significantly contributed to overall
impact, being responsible for (4945 kgCO2).

35. 35
Conclusion
Environmental impacts of timber
Overall, the results show that there is a potential to significantly reduce the
environmental impact during the ‘cradle-to-site’ stages of the lifecycle, by
using timber products (-0.41 to 1.24), compared to galvanized steel (4.1).
There are many environmental impact parameters to consider when
determining the overall effect of producing a product and it is possible to
identify them by undertaking a Life cycle assessment.
The results from the Life cycle assessment revealed that the type of timber
used has varying degrees of impact. The greatest environmental impacts were
on the ‘Global warming potential’ and ‘Acidification potential’ parameters,
which means that the production of timber has a compelling impact towards:
 The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
 The quantity of substances emitted into the atmosphere that results in
acid rain.
On the other hand, the parameters that seemed to have no significant impact
were ‘Ozone depletion potential’, ‘Abiotic depletion potential’, and ‘Waste
disposed’. This suggests that the production of timber presents no significant
threat towards:
 The thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer through emissions.
 The consumption of non-renewable energy.
 The filling of landfills and other disposal sites.
The use of steel and the wood adhesive tend to have a significant impact on the
environment, affecting ‘Global warming potential’, ‘Eutrophication potential’,
‘Photochemical ozone layer creation potential’ and ‘Waste disposed’.
Thermal Efficiency
The thermal efficiency of a building can heavily contribute to the life-cycle
emissions of a building. The U-values of building components must be
considered to minimize the amount of heat lost and therefore, the operational
emissions used to reheat the interior space.
Thermal efficiencies of different building constructions do not vary significantly
and may have no apparent effect on the operational energy consumption.

36. 36
Total life-cycle emissions
It is important to carefully design the construction of the floors, external walls
and roof, because these components tend to have the greatest contribution to
the embodied carbon in all cases. There tends to be a positive correlation
between embodied carbon and weight of structure but it has been identified
that timber and concrete components of a typical new UK house were the only
significant contributors to the overall embodied CO2 content of the building.
In all cases investigated, the heavier weight structures saw a decrease in
overall emissions than the light weight, timber-framed structure because they
were more adapted to warmer summers. A decrease in overall CO2 emissions
can be achieved by focusing on the operational phase, because no results were
found in which initial embodied carbon emissions outweighed the operational
emission savings due to the thermal massing effects. Unfortunately,
consumption if climate change is not taken into account, then this thermal
massing seems to have no bearing on total operational energy emissions.
Buildings of different form and usage type will have different requirements for
energy usage, however, it is clear that a decrease in operational energy is likely
to cause an increase in embodied energy.
It seems that the use of timber and light weight structures has the potential to
reduce embodied energy of domestic dwellings and the initial environmental
impact of using this material tends to be less problematic compared to other
building materials. However, this impact is offset during the operational phase
of a building, where more harm is done in an attempt to maintain indoor
comfort levels throughout its life. The overall emissions and environmental
impact through all the relevant parameters can be reduced by using heavier
weight structures, as their ability to passively control the conditions using
thermal mass properties are so great and relevant for our changing climate.
If the data collected from the literature survey, in respect to global warming
impacts are to be believed, then temperatures will significantly rise over the
century and techniques must be found to adapt to the changes. In order to
reach the targets that the UK government agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol,
further research and planning must be made in this area to reduce the lifecycle
emissions of domestic dwellings.
As a result, architects should answer the global warming situation by focusing
on the operational energy savings when designing a construction. To achieve
higher levels of indoor comfort and reduced lifecycle CO2 emissions in warming
climates, it seems necessary to implement passive and active cooling measures
with a medium to heavyweight construction.

37. 37
Unfortunately, further research needs to be undertaken to clarify what the
optimum type of structure is for constructing domestic dwellings with an aim to
achieve the least carbon emissions throughout the lifecycle.