4.5 Article

Resource Efficiency in the Construction Sector: Material Intensities of Residential Buildings-A German Case Study

Journal

ENERGIES
Volume 15, Issue 16, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en15165825

Keywords

material intensity; LCA; resource efficiency; material flows; building construction

Categories

Funding

  1. Open Access Publication Funds of the Ruhr-Universitat Bochum

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents an approach to compare the material intensity of residential buildings with different construction types. The methodology involves calculating material intensities based on the working drawings of the buildings. The results show that using wood instead of mineral materials can significantly improve resource efficiency in construction.
This article describes an approach for comparing material intensity values for residential buildings with different construction types. Based on the working drawings of the different construction types (wood and mineral), material intensities are calculated at the building level. Material intensities describe the materials used in a building in mass (tonnes (t)) in relation to the square meters (m(2)) of gross floor area (GFA) or the cubic meters (m(3)) of gross volume (GV). The method for determining material intensities at the building level is demonstrated. The results show that material intensities range from 0.61 t/m(2) GFA to 1.95 t/m(2) GFA for single-family residential buildings and from 1.36 t/m(2) GFA to 1.54 t/m(2) GFA for multi-storey residential buildings. The average material intensity for mineral buildings is twice as high as that for wood buildings, which means that there is a beneficial resource efficiency in building with wood instead of mineral materials. Therefore, benchmarks for a resource efficient building can be conducted based on these values. These values demonstrate a possibility to influence resource efficiency in buildings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available