Comparative cradle to grave life cycle assessment between four non-load bearing wall

systems with same thermal resistance using PAROC Natura mineral wool insulation
and comparing the best result with a PV integrated wall system

Program: Master of Science in Sustainable Architecture

Course: Emissions As Design Drivers, AAR4817
Supervisors: Patricia Schneider-Marin , Eirik Resch
Author: Sara Amini

Date: March 2022

Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………2

Abbreviation ………………………………………………………………………………2

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………3

2. Methodology …………………………………………………………………………..4
2.1. Goal and Scope…………………………………………………………………..4
2.2. Inventory Analysis ………………………………………………………………5

3. Results …………………………………………………………………………………6
3.1. Life cycle impact assessment…………………………………………………….6
3.2. Interpretation……………………………………………………………………..8

4. Discussion ……………………………………………………………………………..9

5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..10

6. Appendix………………………………………………………………………………11

7. References …………………………………………………………………………….14

1
Abstract
As the building sector is responsible for a great part of GHG emissions, this report is trying to
lay a point of reference for the material choice of the exterior wall systems of detached
multi-functional halls, to help reduce the embodied emissions through choosing the best set of
products for such a building. As the building is assumed to be part of a school renovation
project in Verdal, Norway, choosing an environmentally friendly insulating material for the
walls is of great importance. There are many products available in the industry, but the most
widely used ones, mineral wool and XPS, are the ones that have been looked more closely at
and compared with each other. The results that are drawn out of Reduzer software are then
analyzed and discussed, to point out how LCA of the materials can make an Architectural
design guidance to the further decisions in the project. Mineral wool, as the main topic of study
here, shows great potential for use in such halls due to its relatively low GWP and high thermal
and fire-resistance. The results illustrate how small mass of this insulating material can be
favorable when paired with other construction materials in a wall.

Keywords: Mineral wool, Exterior wall system, Insulation, LCA, GWP, Thermal resistance

Abbreviation list

EPD Environmental product declaration

CDD Cooling degree day
GWP Global warming potential
HDD Heating degree day
LCA Life-cycle assessment
RSL Reference service life

2
1. Introduction
The building sector is responsible for more than 40% of the total CO2eq emissions. This emission
is either the result of the construction phase and the material production of the building, or its
operating emissions through its life span due to the energy consumption of the mechanical
installations, maintenance and reparation of parts.
At the European level, the parliament has suggested that the Commission develop a framework for
an integrated life-cycle-oriented product policy. As the building and all the materials used for its
construction are also products with an inventory of energy and material consumption, investigating
their life-cycle and emissions before choosing to be used is an important step of the construction ,
design and planning phase, for it to be more sustainable.
Life-Cycle-Assessment (LCA) is a cradle-to-grave or cradle-to-cradle analysis technique to assess
environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product's life, which is from raw material
extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, and use. As this report is to be
used as a reference point for further design work on a school renovation project in Verdal, Norway,
a multi-functional hall has been assumed to be designed for; Buildings’ exterior envelope has an
important role in its thermal performance, energy consumption and finally GreenHouse Gas
emissions. The Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation of Norway has developed a
framework for Technical Requirements for Construction Work known as TEK17, which introduces
constraints for energy consumption of different types of buildings based on their function and
dimensions.

Three EPD files have been exclusively looked into, which their content will be briefly introduced
below;
1. PAROC AST L fire proof panels, NEPD-3212-1852-EN: This product is a steel-faced sandwich
panel with a core of stone wool intended to be used as partitions, ceilings and external wall
structures in industrial, commercial, residential and office buildings, hospitals, chill stores, clean
rooms and in the food industry. Place of Production is in Parainen, Finland and the Market is
Nordic Countries , Central and Eastern Europe. The scenarios beyond cradle-to-gate are based
on the Norwegian market. Composition of 1m2 of AST T 150 mm panel is of 43% metal sheet
and 5.3% mineral wool. The metal sheet is assumed to be 100% recycled and reused, while all
of the mineral wool would be landfilled after its 60 years RSL. The panel provides fire
resistance up to EI 240 and based on the Euroclass EN 13501-1 system A2,s1, d0. Density of
the panel is 20.7 kg/sq.m and the U-value is 0.24 W/sq.m.K. The GWP of A1-3 is 32.8 and D is
-11.1 kgCO2eq. Functional unit of this product is 1 sq.m..

2. PAROC NATURA Stone Wool Thermal Insulation, NEPD-2582-1308-EN: 96-99% of this product
is made of mineral wool which is completely landfilled after the 60 years of its RSL. 1 m2 panel
with R-value of 1 sq.m.K/W is 1 kg and the density of 27,8 kg/m3 for a 100 mm thickness of
the product. Lambda value is 0.036 mK/W and provides fire class of A1. Total GWP is 0.59
kgCO2eq for A1-3 phase.

3. MAXEON 3 Mono-crystalline photovoltaic module, NEPD-3087-1726-EN: Produced by the

SunPower company, these 400wp modules are produced in Mexico with Silicon from
Philippines and sent to Norway and other Nordic countries as their main market. The RSL is 25
years. Functional unit of this product is 1Wp of manufactured photovoltaic module, from
cradle-to-grave.

3
2. Methodology
In this report, in order to study a few choices for a wall system to be used as the external facade of a
multi-functional hall in the school project, we have started the investigation by looking into a non-load
bearing fireproof panel produced by PAROC company. The panel is made up of two materials, 15cm mineral
wool, by the same company, covered by 2mm thick metal sheets on sides. This panel provides a good level of
fire resistance, although its thermal resistance is not as favorable for such a hall as it would be needed based
on the minimum requirements for energy consumption introduced by TEK17. As stated in this handbook, the
maximum level of energy consumption for sports buildings is 145 kWh/sq.m per year. To achieve this goal,
the buildings’ envelope must be well insulated, and its adjacencies with other indoor or outdoor spaces must
be taken into account. Since the design has not been done yet, some assumptions have been made to simplify
the calculations and the comparison, in order to focus on the LCA of the materials that are to be used.
Therefore, a detached 24*16*6 m salon has been taken into account with a well insulated roof and ground
floor system (fig.1).

Initially to pick the right limits for the thermal characteristics of the wall, the DesignBuilder software, using
the EnergyPlus motor for energy simulation, has been used. The hall has been modeled with the foretold
dimensions, with the epw file of Trondheim’s airport, as the precise weather file for Verdal was not accessible
and this one has the closest HDD and CDD to Verdal, as the dry-bulb temperature and humidity limits are
similar. Moreover, to find the proper thickness of each layer of the wall to have the total R-value of 13.53
sq.m.K/W, again we used this software to modify the thickness of each layer and monitor its influence on the
walls’ thermal performance. Further on, after reaching the four types of compositions of the walls, to compare
the mass flow and GWP of different wall systems, Reduzer application has been used. The wall type 5 is
designed the same as the wall type 3 only without timber cladding on its exterior facade and covered with
Photovoltaic panels. As the PV panel has no effect on the wall's thermal resistance, it has not been modeled in
DesignBuilder and only has been added in Reduzer to study its LCA and impact on GWP of the wall system.

Figure 1 , assumed hall model, designbuilder

2.1. Goal and Scope

In order to achieve a composition for the wall to have a proper thermal performance to be used in the hall, I
looked into a total of 12 EPDs for different materials which 8 of them were finally chosen to build up the 4
types of wall systems with the same thermal resistance. Since the Paroc panel that we initiated our study
upon, is not a very common type of wall system, the other materials that have been looked into are the ones
that are usually used in such buildings in Norway, to have a better point of comparison between different
options. What is more, mineral wool have been paired in all wall options with different thicknesses to help us
look into its cumulative effects in different wall systems, and also compared with another type of common
thermal insulation, XPS, in the same composition of materials, to investigate their mass flow, wastage and
Global Warming Potential while having the same thermal effects.
4
2.2. Inventory Analysis
For the energy consumption to be below the constraint, the R-value of the walls must be 13.53 sq.m.K/W. For
the Paroc panel to be modified to reach this level of resistance, another 33cm of mineral wool needs to be
added to the previous 15cm panel, making its thickness as much as 48cm. To minimize the thickness of the
wall and the amount of mineral wool used within it, while keeping the same R-value, another composition of
materials has been set, using only 5cm of mineral wool and having a total thickness of 28.5cm. In this
composition, a generic set of materials have been chosen; concrete blocks with plaster finish and wood
cladding. To look more closely at the effect of the mineral wool insulation, another type of wall with same
material composition and thicknesses has been set, only instead of the 5cm mineral wool insulation a 6cm
XPS board has been put.
The plaster used as internal finish in wall types 3 to 5 is Weberbase KC 35/65 by Saint-gobain
byggevarer as. This material is produced inside Norway and its estimated distance to be taken from
the gate of the factory to the construction site is 200km. The concrete blocks are from Leca
international, the Leca Universalblokk 20cm which are made from lightweight aggregate. These
blocks have high thermal mass and they also have a high level of thermal resistance, therefore they
are one of the best and most common options for the walls’ mass and could be paired with minimum
thickness of thermal insulation. The timber cladding is Woodify Natur - Thermowood made from
pine or spruce in Sweden. All these materials have the same estimated service life of 60 years,
except for the thermowood, which is 50 years.

Figure 2, Wall types Composition

All the wall compositions shown above (fig.2) have the same thermal resistance of 13.53sq.m.K/W ,
except for wall-1, the original Paroc AST panel and its R-value is 4.5sq.m.K/W.

5
3. Results
The GWP of each wall type has been calculated using two methods, dynamic and static LCA.
FutureBuilt Zero and NS3720 are respectively the standards used for each method in Reduzer
software to assess the GWP. Differences in these two methods are mostly in the level of change
happening in the life-cycle of materials, products and components that they each take into account;
The static method calculates the GWP as if changes such as carbonation, growth, technological
improvements, waste allocation and circularity have already happened and are distributed equally
through an infinite time horizon, while in the dynamic method changes are happening through a 100
year time horizon by simplifying them through multiplying some percentages of change in each
sector by the original values.

3.1. Life cycle impact assessment

As illustrated in the bar charts below (fig.3.1), in the first two types of wall systems, both calculation
methods create the exact same results due to the material composition of the walls. Although, in other
components (fig.3.2), because of the biogenic Carbon of timber materials, incineration and
carbonation some equivalent GWP have been calculated during the use and end-of-life phases. What
is more, although in the first two wall types the metal sheet that has been used and forms about 50%
of the walls, is to be completely recycled, no GWP have been associated in the end-of-life or the
benefits and loads beyond the system boundary phases. If we take into account some negative GWP
in the D phase due the recycling of the metal sheet, the total GWP of the first two wall types would
fall dramatically under 50 kgCO2eq, which is already the least value among all wall types.

Figure 3.1, Walls’ Cradle-to-grave GWP (kgCO2eq)

The difference between the static and the dynamic method for LCA is more explicit in the wall types
3 to 5, as the associated GWP of incineration and transport in the maintenance, repair and waste
processing phases are the changes that take place during the life-cycle of timber and concrete

6
materials and are calculated differently in the two methods. Moreover, as concrete block is the
material that these three wall systems share, and the RSL of concrete is the only one that is 50 years
among all used materials, the mass flow of such component and the need for it to be replaced or
repaired is by 1.2 more than other parts and results in greater GWP in the B and C phases.

Figure 3.2, Walls’ Cradle-to-grave GWP (kgCO2eq)

In the wall type 5, as there are photovoltaic panels assumed to be integrated in the facade, the RSL of
25 years of the panels have added a dramatic amount of GWP in the B2-5 phase, which is associated
with the maintenance, repair and replacement of products. What is more, the PV panel is produced in
Mexico and transported to a site in Norway. This 5000 distance adds an enormous amount of GWP to
A1-3 and B2-5 phases, and has eventually made this wall system the most Carbon equivalent emitting
among all types. As the raw material used to build up the PV panels are extracted mostly in Southern
America, having a panel produced in Europe would not be a reasonable assumption to change the
GWP of such a wall system.

7
Furthermore, looking into the mass flow of the different wall compositions, as the first type has the
least thickness and number of materials used in, has the least mass flow within the system’s boundary.
The small number of materials is also making the mass flow in the second wall type way less than
other types of wall with the same R-value (fig.4). Wall 3, 4 and 5 show a very similar flow of mass
with only low variation, mostly in the waste mass flow in operational phase (B). This difference
could be explained by the 25-year RSL of PV used in wall-5, resulting in more waste produced in the
system’s boundary.
What is more, both calculation methods show the exact same results of mass flow for all wall
systems, which was as expected since the basis of these methods has no effect on the amount of
products used or change in their value in each stage of the life-cycle. Therefore, here in the bar charts
only the results of one of the methods is shown (fig.4).

Figure 4, Mass flow of wall systems (kg)

4.2.Interpretation
Charts below conclude the total GWP of the 5 components in comparison with each other by both
static and dynamic calculation methods. Wall-1 should be excluded from the comparison, since it has
a different R-value than other 4 walls, although it sets a good reference point for the comparison as it
illustrates how the less number and amount of material used in a component, the less the associated
GWP (fig.5). Among the other four components, wall-2 has the least GWP, however its 48cm
thickness is a challenging and non-realistic composition for a wall system. Wall-3 and wall-4 have
different insulating materials with the same composition of other materials. The 5cm mineral wool in
wall-3 has resulted in less GWP than the 6cm XPS in wall-4 in the construction(A) and end-of-life(C)
phases. As the thickness of XPS is more than mineral wool, one may argue that the higher emission is
due to higher mass used in the wall, however since the main role of these layers is thermal insulation,
having the same R-value is the basis of comparison and not the thickness; Therefore, it is concluded
that the mineral wool is a more sustainable material to be used as insulation. What is more, the
fire-resistance provided by the mineral wool is much higher than XPS, adding more benefits to the
wall, with less material counts.
What is to be noticed is that in the FutureBuilt Zero method, most of the GWP of the walls is due to
the construction(A) phase, while in the NS3720 method, operation(B) forms most of the walls’ GWP.
This could be due the static method counting future emissions as much as the present while in the
8
dynamic method future emission is counted less in a limited time horizon. What is important is that in
both methods, the ranking of walls based on their GWP is the same.

Figure 5 , Total GWP Comparison

4. Discussion
In architectural design, the physical characteristics of parts like walls that matters the most is the
overall thickness of the wall and the composition of each layer of material within it, and the
mass/weight or density of the wall does not give much illustrative information for design. Also, the
thermal performance of the wall and ultimately the building is a result of the composition and
thickness of each layer. Therefore, to analyze the effect of each layer of material in relation to its effect
in the walls’ composition, the pie charts below(fig.5) depict how the thickness of each layer is
responsible for how much of the GWP of the wall system.

The first two wall types show how the mineral wool is responsible for most of the GWP as it is also
forming most of the wall’s thickness. As wall-2 is the Paroc panel created as one single product in
Reduzer plus 33cm more Paroc mineral wool, the GWP of each layer is proportional to the thickness
of each material. Further on, in the last three components most of GWP is due to the 20 cm concrete
block, and although plaster is forming a small percentage of the wall’s thickness, its GWP is more than
the insulation and cladding layers. Comparing the GWP of mineral wool in wall-3 with the XPS in
wall-4, it is obvious how the rather same percentage of use of each in the walls has created way higher
GWP in the wall using XPS.

9
 Material composition within the wall’s thickness GWP of each layer within the wall’s thickness

Figure 6, material composition within wall’s thickness vs.gwp of the materials

5. Conclusion
To conclude, as the results illustrate, in order to compose a component to be more environmentally
friendly, the less number of material used in it, the lower the associated GWP of it. Therefore, minimal
choices for components such as wall systems are suggested.

10
What is more, looking into the effect of using mineral wool as insulation within wall systems,
although it was expected for it to have strong non-favorable impact on the GWP because of it
end-of-life scenario of landfilling, its composition of 10% rock material and 90% air has made it less
of a harmful material for the environment; plus, its thermal performance and fire resistance are also
qualities that should be taken into account when comparing with other materials such as XPS as we
did in this report.
At last, although many more PV panels must be investigated, but the production of such panels in
southern American countries, along with their very short RSL has made their GWP dramatically high
that it does not seem rational to be used in terms of LCA; Further analysis must be done to study if the
operational energy generation of these panels can make up for the high GWP of the embodied section.

6. Appendix

11
12
13
7. References
Alberto Vilches, Life cycle assessment (LCA) of building refurbishment: A literature
Review, High Technical School of Architecture, University of Seville, Avda. Reina Mercedes
41012 Seville, Spain, 20 November 2016

Allan Astrup Jensen, Life Cycle Assessment, A guide to approaches, experiences and information
sources, August 1997.

Comisión Europea, COM (2011) 112 Final. Comunicación de la comisión.Hoja de ruta hacia una
economía hipocarbónica competitiva en 2050., 2011.

C. Costello, The RIBA Guide to Sustainability in Practice (2012).

Forskrift om tekniske krav til byggverk (Byggteknisk forskrift - TEK17), July 2017

Iyyanki V.Muralikrishna, Chapter Five - Life Cycle Assessment, Environmental Management,

Science and Engineering for Industry, 2017, Pages 57-75.

14