Embodied Energy and CO<sub>2</sub> Analyses of Mud-brick and Cement-block Houses

Abanda F.Henry; Nkeng G.Elambo; Tah J.H.M.; Ohandja E.N.Fabrice; Manjia M.Blanche; Abanda F.Henry; Nkeng G.Elambo; Tah J.H.M.; Ohandja E.N.Fabrice; Manjia M.Blanche

doi:10.3934/energy.2014.1.18

AIMS Energy

2014, Volume 2, Issue 1: 18-40. doi: 10.3934/energy.2014.1.18

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Embodied Energy and CO₂ Analyses of Mud-brick and Cement-block Houses

1.
Department of Real Estate and Construction, Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, OX3 0BP, UK;
2.
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Travaux Publics, B.P 510, Yaoundé, Cameroun;
3.
Department of Civil Engineering and Urban Planning, National Advanced School of Engineering, University of Yaoundé I, Cameroon

Received: 14 October 2013 Accepted: 09 December 2013 Published: 27 January 2014

In building projects, the extraction of vast quantities of materials is too common. The extraction of materials and the erection of buildings consume embodied energy and emit carbon dioxide (CO₂) that impact negatively on the environment. Therefore it is necessary to consider embodied energy and CO₂ amongst other factors in selecting building materials for use in building projects. In most developing countries, building environmental performance analysis has yet to gain interest from the construction community. However, with recent increase in sustainability awareness, both developed and developing nations have engaged in efforts to tackle this challenge. Embodied energy and CO₂ are among the leading parameters in assessing environmental building performance. In Cameroon, studies about the assessment of embodied energy and CO₂ of building projects are scarce. Hence, professionals find it difficult to make alternative choices for building materials to use in their different building projects. This study uses a detailed process analysis approach supported by two popular housing types in Cameroon (mud-brick and cement-block houses) to assess the embodied energy and CO₂ impacts from building materials. The emerging Building Information Modelling (BIM) tool was used to validate the computational results of the process analysis method. The findings revealed the embodied energy and CO₂ for the mud-brick houses are 137934.91 MJ (2007.8 MJ/m²) and 15665.56 Kg CO₂(228.03 Kg CO₂/m²); the cement-block houses are 292326.81 MJ (3065.51 MJ/m²) and 37829.19 Kg CO₂(396.7 Kg CO₂/m²) respectively. Thus, the cement-block house expends at least 1.5 times more embodied energy and emits at least 1.7 times more embodied CO₂ than mud-brick house. Although these findings cannot be generalized, they nonetheless indicate the importance of considering embodied energy and CO₂ in making alternative choices for use in different building projects.
- BIM,
- Cameroon,
- embodied energy,
- embodied CO₂,
- Mud-brick house
Citation: Abanda F.Henry, Nkeng G.Elambo, Tah J.H.M., Ohandja E.N.Fabrice, Manjia M.Blanche. Embodied Energy and CO2 Analyses of Mud-brick and Cement-block Houses[J]. AIMS Energy, 2014, 2(1): 18-40. doi: 10.3934/energy.2014.1.18

Related Papers:

Abstract

In building projects, the extraction of vast quantities of materials is too common. The extraction of materials and the erection of buildings consume embodied energy and emit carbon dioxide (CO₂) that impact negatively on the environment. Therefore it is necessary to consider embodied energy and CO₂ amongst other factors in selecting building materials for use in building projects. In most developing countries, building environmental performance analysis has yet to gain interest from the construction community. However, with recent increase in sustainability awareness, both developed and developing nations have engaged in efforts to tackle this challenge. Embodied energy and CO₂ are among the leading parameters in assessing environmental building performance. In Cameroon, studies about the assessment of embodied energy and CO₂ of building projects are scarce. Hence, professionals find it difficult to make alternative choices for building materials to use in their different building projects. This study uses a detailed process analysis approach supported by two popular housing types in Cameroon (mud-brick and cement-block houses) to assess the embodied energy and CO₂ impacts from building materials. The emerging Building Information Modelling (BIM) tool was used to validate the computational results of the process analysis method. The findings revealed the embodied energy and CO₂ for the mud-brick houses are 137934.91 MJ (2007.8 MJ/m²) and 15665.56 Kg CO₂(228.03 Kg CO₂/m²); the cement-block houses are 292326.81 MJ (3065.51 MJ/m²) and 37829.19 Kg CO₂(396.7 Kg CO₂/m²) respectively. Thus, the cement-block house expends at least 1.5 times more embodied energy and emits at least 1.7 times more embodied CO₂ than mud-brick house. Although these findings cannot be generalized, they nonetheless indicate the importance of considering embodied energy and CO₂ in making alternative choices for use in different building projects.

References

[1]	IEA (2012) Policies and measures database. International Energy Agency.
[2]	Jennings M, Hirst N, Gambhir A, et al. (2011) Reduction of carbon dioxide emissions in the global building sector to 2050. UK: Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London.
[3]	Osmani M (2011) Construction waste. Waste: A handbook for management: Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
[4]	Adedeji YMD (2010) Technology and standardised composite cement fibres for housing in Nigeria. Nigerian Inst Architects 1: 19-24.
[5]	Hammond G, Jones C (2008) Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Energy 161: 87-98.
[6]	Edwards B (2010) Rough guide to sustainability: A design primer. UK: RIBA Publishing.
[7]	Ürge-Vorsatz D, Novikova A (2008) Potentials and costs of carbon dioxide mitigation in the world's buildings. Energ Policy 36: 642-661. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.009
[8]	Meukam P, Jannot Y, Noumowe A, et al. (2004) Thermo physical characteristics of economical building materials. Constr Build Mater 18: 437-443. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.03.010
[9]	Robiglio V, Ngendakumana S, Yemefack M, et al. (2010) Reducing emissions from all land uses. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre.
[10]	Milne G, Reardon C (2008) Embodied energy Canberra, Australia: Your Home, Department of Industry.
[11]	Weight D, Rawlinson S (2010) Sustainability: embodied carbon. Building 41.
[12]	Thormark C (2006) The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recyclying potential of a building. Build Environ 41: 1019-1026. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.026
[13]	González M, Navarro J (2006) Assessment of the decrease of CO₂ emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact. Build Environ 41: 902-909. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.006
[14]	Adedeji YMD, Fa G (2012) Sustainable housing provision: preference for the use of interlocking masonry in housing delivery in Nigeria. Environ Res Manage 3: 009-016.
[15]	Mpakati-Gama E, Wamuziri S, Sloan B (2011) Applicability of inventory methods for embodied energy assessment of buildings in Sub-Sahara Africa. The Built & Human Environment Review.
[16]	Hugo J, Stoffberg H, Barker A (2012) Mitigating climate change by minimising carbon footprint and embodied energy of construction materials: A comparative analysis of three South African Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations. Acta Structilia 19: 21-45.
[17]	Irurah D, Holm D (1999) Energy impact analysis of building construction as applied to South Africa. Constr Manage and Econ 17: 363-374. doi: 10.1080/014461999371565
[18]	Verbeeck G, Hens H (2010) Life cycle inventory of building: a calculation method. Build Environ 45: 1037-1041. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.10.012
[19]	Blengini G, Carlo T (2010) The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energ Buildings 42: 869-880. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.009
[20]	Institution BS (2011) BS EN 15978: Sustainability of construction works assessment of environmental performance of buildings calculation method. UK: British Standards Institution.
[21]	Seo S, Hwang Y (2001) Estimation of CO₂ emissions in life cycle of residential buildings. Constr Manage and Econ 127: 414-418.
[22]	Treloar G, Gupta H, Love P, et al. (2003) An analysis of factors influencing waste minimisation and use of recycled materials for construction of residential buildings. Manage Environ Qual: Int J 14: 134-145. doi: 10.1108/14777830310460432
[23]	Goggins J, Keane T, Kelly A (2010) The assessment of embodied energy in typical reinforced concrete building structures in Ireland. Energ Buildings 42: 735-744. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.11.013
[24]	Crawford R, Treloar G (2003) Validation of the use of Australian input-output data for building embodied energy simulation. 8th International IBPSA Conference. Eindhoven,TheNetherlands.
[25]	Dixit MK, Fernandez-Solis JL, Lavy S, et al. (2010) Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: A literature review. Energ Buildings 42: 1238-1247. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.016
[26]	Boulter P, Barlow T, McCrae I (2009) Emission factors 2009: Report 3-exhaust emission factors for road vehicles in the United Kingdom. UK: Department for Transport.
[27]	McGinlay J (2004) Non-road mobile machinery usage, life and correction factors. UK: Department for Transport.
[28]	Kurul E, Abanda F, Tah J, et al. (2013) Rethinking the build process for BIM adoption. CIB World Building Congress Construction and Society. Australia.
[29]	Fombe L, Ntani M (2012) Building and endangering urban landscapes: the case of construction wastes in Bamenda-Cameroon. Sust Dev 5: 60-67.
[30]	Cout R, Trois C (2010) Waste management activities and carbon emissions in Africa. Waste Manage 31: 131-137.
[31]	Abanda F, Zhou W, Tah JHM, et al. (2013) Exploring the relationships between linked open data and building information modelling (BIM). Sustainable Building and Construction (SB 13) Coventry University, UK: Coventry University. pp. 176-185.
[32]	Pullen S (2000) Estimating the embodied energy of timber building products. Inst Wood Sci 15: 147-151.
[33]	Reddy B, Jagadish K (2003) Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies. Energ Buildings 35: 129-137. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7788(01)00141-4
[34]	Chel A, Tiwari G (2009) Thermal performance and embodied energy analysis of a passive house-Case study of vault roof mud-house in India. Appl Energ 86: 1956-1969. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.12.033
[35]	Böjesson P, Gustavsson L (2000) Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energ Policy 28: 575-588. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00049-5
[36]	Lenzen M, Treloar G (2002) Embodied energy in buildings: wood versus concrete - reply to Börjesson and Gustavsson. Energ Policy 30: 249-255. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00142-2
[37]	Levine M, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Blok K, et al. (2007) Residential and commercial buildings. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press
[38]	Lippke B, Wilson J, Perez-Garcia J, et al. (2004) CORRIM: Life-cycle environmental performance of renewable building materials. Forest Prod 54: 8-19.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2014 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)