Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Carbon footprint and embodied energy assessment of roof-covering materials

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The residential building sector regularly satisfies a diverse range of housing needs whilst addressing respective capital-cost considerations. Designers and builders must also be aware of the environmental implications of their design specifications; the work here adds to a body of knowledge concerned with carbon footprint and embodied energy demand, specifically through an examination of alternative roof-covering materials. A life cycle assessment (LCA) has been carried out, within a West Australian context, to compare impacts for the roof specification options of: clay tile; concrete tile; and sheet metal. In locations where recycling facilities are unavailable and thus disregarded, it is found that clay tiles have the lowest carbon footprint of 4.4 t of CO2 equivalent (CO2e-) and embodied energy demand of 52.7 Mega Joule (MJ) per 100 m2, while sheet-metal roofing has the highest carbon footprint (9.85 t of CO2e-), with concrete roof tiles having the highest embodied energy demand (83 MJ). Findings confirm that a sheet-metal roof can obtain significant carbon and embodied energy saving benefits (i.e. 71–73%) compared to clay tile or concrete roof covers through ongoing encouragement of recycling strategies and increased local recycling facilities able to embrace residual cradle-to-cradle material reuse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atlas Steel (2014) Products. Altona, Melbourne, p 3018

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas W (2014) Carbon footprint and embodied energy consumption assessment of building construction works in Western Australia. Int J Sustain Built Environ 3(2):179–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bluescope steel (2014) Roofing. Wollongong DC NSW 2500 http://www.bluescopesteel.com.au/building-products/roofing. Accessed 30 June 2014

  • Boral (2014) Construction material and clay bricks across Western Australia: locations and availability. http://www.boral.com.au/home.asp. Accessed 27 Sep 2014

  • British Research Establishment (2014) Ecotoxicity . http://www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/page.jsp?id=2099. Accessed 15 May 2014

  • Building Products Innovation Council (2014) Building products life-cycle inventory. http://www.bpic.asn.au/lci/guidance-materials/guidancematerialforthebplci. Accessed 15 May 2014

  • Chenani SB, Lehvavirta S, Hakkinen T (2015) Life-cycle assessment of layers of green roofs. J Clean Prod 90:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford RH, Bartak EL, Stephan A, Jensen CA (2016) Evaluating the life cycle energy benefits of energy efficiency regulations for buildings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 63:435–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Water and Environmental Regulations (2017) Rainwater, Government of Western Australia

  • Ding GK (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of sustainable building materials: an overview. In: Pacheco-Torgal F, Cabeza LF, Labrincha J, de Magalhaes A (eds) Eco-efficient construction and building materials life cycle assessment (LCA), eco-labelling and case studies. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp 38–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlop RA (2013) Sustainable energy. Cengage Learning, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Fatimah Y, Biswas WK (2016) Remanufacturing as a means for achieving low-carbon SMEs in Indonesia. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:2363–2379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (FISIS) (2013) Methodology for the free allocation of emission allowances in the EU ETS post 2012: sector report for the ceramics industry European Commission, Study Contract: 07.0307/2008/515770/ETU/C2, Ecofys Project Number: PECSNL082164

  • Grant T (2015) WA power mix. Australia. Life cycle strategy, Melbourne. www.lifecycles.com.au/#!australian_data__tools/c1s7h

  • Huberman N, Pearlmutter D, Gal E, Meir IA (2015) Optimizing structural roof form for life-cycle energy efficiency. Energy Build 104:336–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyder Consulting (2009) Recycling activity in Western Australia. prepared for Waste Authority, Western Australia

  • IPCC (2007) AR4 SYR, Core Writing Team; Pachauri RK, Reisinger A (eds), Climate change 2007: synthesis report, contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, IPCC. (ISBN 92-9169-122-4)

  • ISO (2006) ISO 14044:2006 - Environmental management—life-cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawania KK (2016) Improving the sustainability performance of Western Australian house construction: a life-cycle management approach, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Curtin University, Perth. https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500.11937/1705. Accessed 6 Apr 2017

  • Lawania K, Biswas WK (2016) Cost effective GHG mitigation strategies for Western Australia’s housing sector: a life-cycle management approach. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:2419–2428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawania KK, Biswas WK (2018) Application of life-cycle assessment approach to deliver low carbon houses at regional level in Western Australia. Int J life-cycle Assess 23:204–224

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Life Cycle Strategies Pty Ltd (2015) Australasian unit process LCI library and methods. Version 2015_02_06, Melbourne, Australia

  • Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH, Hertwich EG (2011) Evaluation of process- and input–output-based life cycle inventory data with regard to truncation and aggregation issues. Environ Sci Technol 45(23):10170–10177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • National Housing Supply Council (NHSC) (2011) The key findings of 2011, the state of supply report, the Australian government. National Housing Supply Council, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited (NZAS) (2011) Sustainable development review, Tiwai Point 9877, New Zealand

  • PRé-Consultants (2015) Simapro 7.3 LCA Software. Stationsplein 121, 3818 LE, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

  • Robati M, McCarthy TJ, Kokogiannakis G (2016) Incorporating environmental evaluation and thermal properties of concrete mix designs. Constr Build Mater 128(15):422–435

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robati M, Kokogiannakis G, McCarthy TJ (2017) Impact of structural design solutions on the energy and thermal performance of an Australian office building. Build Environ 124(1):258–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saiz S, Kennedy C, Bass B, Pressnail K (2006) Comparative life-cycle assessment of standard and green roofs. Environ Sci Technol 40:4312–4316

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel C (2016) The application of life cycle assessment to public policy development. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(3):337–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan A, Stephan L (2014) Reducing the total life cycle energy demand of recent residential buildings in Lebanon. Energy 74:618–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suh S, Tomar S, Leighton M, Kneifel JD (2014) Environmental performance of green building code and certification systems. Environ Sci Technol 48(5):2551–2560

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte A (2012) Life-cycle assessment of built-asset waste materials: sustainable disposal options. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken. ISBN: 978-3-8465-5960-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte A (2015) Integrated design and cost management for civil engineers. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, London ISBN: 13:978-0-415-80921-4

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Bentley, Perth, Australia

    Andy Binh Duong Le, Andrew Whyte & Wahidul K. Biswas

Authors
  1. Andy Binh Duong Le
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Whyte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wahidul K. Biswas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wahidul K. Biswas.

Appendices

Appendix A: a sample calculation of timber structure

  • Details and specification were provided by drawings and the Design Engineer from City of Melville.

  • General specification of a residential house:

  • Joist spacing: 600 mm.

  • Rafter spacing: 600 mm.

  • 70/75 mm frame.

  • Pitch angle: 20 degrees.

  • Single storey.

  • Specification of material:

  • Top plates (AS 1684.4 Table A22).

  • Roof type: sheet-metal roof.

  • Rafter Span = 9,000 mm.

  • Timber size: MGP10 2/45 × 70.

  • Roof type: clay and concrete tile.

  • Rafter Span = 9000 mm.

  • Timber size: MGP10 3/45 × 70.

  • Ceiling Joists (AS 1684.4 Table A27).

  • Joist span: 3600 mm.

  • Timber size: MGP10 120 × 45.

  • Hanging beam (AS 1684.4 Table A28).

  • Ceiling joist span: 3600 mm.

  • Hanging beam span: 3600 mm.

  • Timber size: MGP10 240 × 35.

  • Strutting beams (AS 1684.4 Table A32).

  • Sheet roof strutting beam span: 4800 mm.

  • Timber size: sheet metal: MGP10 2/190 × 35.

  • Timber size: clay and concrete tile: MGP10 2/240 × 45 Underpurlins (AS 1684.4 TA33).

  • Strut spacing: 2400 mm.

  • Timber size: sheet metal: MGP10 2/90 × 45.

  • Timber size: clay and concrete tile: MGP10 2/140 × 35 Rafters (HySPAN).

  • Timber size: sheet metal: MGP10 120 × 35.

  • Timber size: clay and concrete tile: MGP10 120 × 35 Ridge Beam (AS 1684.4 Table A36).

  • Beam spacing: 2400 mm.

  • Beam span: 3600 mm.

  • Timber size: sheet metal: MGP10 2/190 × 45.

  • Timber size: clay and concrete Tile: MGP10 2/240 × 45 Batten (AS 1684.4 Table A37).

  • Rafter spacing: 600 mm.

  • Batten spacing: 900 mm.

  • Timber size: sheet metal: MGP 45 × 70.

  • Rafter spacing: 600 mm.

  • Batten spacing: 330 mm.

  • Timber size: clay and concrete Tile -MGP10 35 × 42 Hip or Valley Rafters (HySPAN).

  • Timber size: sheet metal: MGP10 190 × 45.

  • Timber size: clay and concrete tile: MGP10 240 × 45 Roof Struts.

  • Timber size: MGP10 90 × 45.

    figure a

  • The timber frame required was calculated by measuring the drawings to calculate the length and then calculating the volume using the dimension of the timber frame in the above section.

  • Timber frame required (tile: concrete & clay):

  • Total length of top plate (MGP10 2/45 × 70) = 43.2 m.

  • Total volume of top plate = 43.2 × 0.045 × 0.07 = 0.136 m3.

  • Total length of ceiling joists (MGP10 120 × 45) = 204 m.

  • Total volume of ceiling joists = 204 × 0.12 × 0.045 = 1.1 m3.

  • Total length of hanging beam (MGP10 240 × 35) = 44.6 m.

  • Total volume of hanging beam = 44.6 × 0.24 × 0.035 = 0.375 m3.

  • Total length of strutting beam (240 × 45) = 13.45 m.

  • Total volume of strutting beam = 13.45 × 0.24 × 0.045 = 0.145 m3.

  • Total length of underpurlin (MGP10 140 × 35) = 60.7 m.

  • Total volume of underpurlin = 60.7 × 0.14 × 0.035 = 0.3 m3.

  • Total length of rafter (MGP10 120 × 35) = 197 m.

  • Total volume of rafter = 197 × 0.12 × 0.035 = 0.83 m3.

  • Total length of ridge beam (MGP10 240 × 45) = 3.22 m.

  • Total volume of ridge beam = 3.22 × 0.24 × 0.045 = 0.035 m3.

  • Total length of batten (MGP10 35 × 42) = 317 m.

  • Total volume of batten = 317 × 0.035 × 0.042 = 0.47 m3.

  • Total length of valley rafter (MGP10 240×45) = 26 m.

  • Total volume of valley rafter = 26 × 0.24 × 0.045 = 0.28 m3.

  • Total length of roof struts (MGP10 90 × 45) = 36 m.

  • Total volume of roof struts = 36 × 0.09 × 0.045 = 0.15 m3.

  • Total timber volume = 3.821 m3.

  • Timber frame required (sheet metal):

  • Total length of top plate (MGP10 3/45×70) = 43.2 m.

  • Roof cladding required:

  • Clay tiles:

  • No. of tiles per m2: 11.9

  • No of tiles required: 11.9 × 150 = 1785 tiles.

  • Mass per tile: 3.1 kg.

  • Total mass of tiles = 3.1 × 1785.

  • Total mass of tiles = 5533.5 kg.

  • Total mass of quartz (60%) = 5533.5 × 0.6

  • Total mass of quartz (60%) = 3320.1 kg.

  • Total mass of clay minerals (40%) = 5533.5 × 0.4 Total mass of clay minerals (40%) = 2213.4 kg Concrete Tiles:

  • No. of tiles per m2: 9.4

  • No of tiles required: 9.4 × 150 = 1410 tiles.

  • Mass per tile: 5.55 kg.

  • Total mass of tiles = 5.55 × 1410.

  • Total mass of tiles = 7825.5 kg.

  • Total mass of quartz (70%) = 7825.5 × 0.7

  • Total mass of quartz (70%) = 5477.85 kg.

  • Total mass of Portland cement (30%) = 7825.5 × 0.3 Total mass of Portland cement (30%) = 2347.65 kg Steel Roofing:

  • Required steel roofing: 150 m2.

  • Mass: 4.3 kg/m2.

  • Total mass of metal roofing: 150 × 4.3

  • Total mass of metal roofing: 645 kg.

  • Total mass of Aluminium (55%): 354.75 kg.

  • Total mass of Zinc (43.5%): 280.575 kg.

  • Total mass of Silicon (1.5%): 9.675 kg.

Appendix B: calculation of the effects of varying solar reflectance of roofing materials

  • Physical Data: Physical data assumptions are detailed below for input into Eq. 1.

  • Temperature readings are taken from the (WA) Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The temperature (T1) is the average temperature recorded at 3 pm from 1994 to 2011 at Perth Metro WA each month. Industry representatives (thanks to TT air-conditioning), the conformable temperature will vary individual to individual. However, industry representatives note that many buildings are set at a room temperature of 24 degrees C.

  • Average radiation figures for areas in Perth metro WA have been derived from BOM. A figure of 625 W/m2 for a 6 h day is typical. BOM has also provided data that the heat flow transfer coefficient is 25 W/m2.K.

  • The Building code of Australia, 2005 notes that roofing requires a total R value (= 1/U) of 2.2 m2. K/W.

  • According to Selby (2006) the absorption rate for clay tile, concrete tile and sheet metaling is 0.63, 0.67, and 0.38.

  • Q = rate of heat flow per square metre from roof to the inside.

  • U = the overall heat transfer coefficient between the ambient and inside (W/m2/K) Note that 1/U = R (the thermal resistance).

  • H = Outside transfer coefficient between roof and ambient (W/m2/K).

  • ∂ = rate of absorption to solar radiation.

  • G = Solar radiation per unit area.

  • Calculation for January (Clay Tile):

  • Average temperature at 3 pm: 29 degrees.

  • Comfortable temperature: 24 degrees.

  • Change in temperature = 29 − 24 = 5 degrees (Cooling).

  • α = 0.63 (Clay tile).

  • h = 25 W/m2.K

  • G = 625 watts/m2.

  • R = 1/U = 2.2 m2 K/W (Building code of Australia, 2005).

  • Roof area = 100 m2.

  • Heat Loss = (1/2)*((0.63*635/25) + 5).

  • Heat Loss = 9.43 W.

  • Heat Loss = 0.94 kW.

  • Heat Loss over 6 h = − 0.94 × 6 = 5.66 GJr.

  • Heat Loss in a month = − 5.66 * 31 days = 175.43 GJr.

  • Heat Loss in 65 years = − 175.43 × 65 years = 11,403.07 GJr.

  • Total Cooling in 65 years during the month that requires cooling = 59,961.61 GJr.

  • Calculation for applied energy.

  • 1 x Mitsubishi 4.2 kW Air Conditioner.

  • Energy Efficiency (Cooling): 2 stars (Sourced from TT air-conditioning).

  • COP: 3.25 (Energy Aus).

  • Energy efficiency (heating): 2.5 Stars (sourced from TT air-conditioning).

  • COP: 3.5 (Energy Aus).

  • Cool Capacity: 4.2 kW.

  • Heating Capacity: 5.4 kW.

  • Total Output Energy for Clay (Cooling): 59,961.61 GJr.

  • COP = output/input.

  • 3.25 = 59,961.61 GJr/Input.

  • Input = 18,449.73 GJr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Le, A.B.D., Whyte, A. & Biswas, W.K. Carbon footprint and embodied energy assessment of roof-covering materials. Clean Techn Environ Policy 21, 1913–1923 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1629-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1629-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation