See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/347080804

Sustainable building material selection: A case study in a Japanese context

Article  in  IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · November 2020

DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/588/2/022069

CITATIONS READS

0 935

3 authors, including:

Atsushi Takano Masashi Aiki

Kagoshima University Kagoshima University
35 PUBLICATIONS   559 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Aalto Wood View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Atsushi Takano on 16 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Sustainable building material selection: A case study in a Japanese

context
To cite this article: Atsushi Takano et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 588 022069

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 163.209.225.33 on 25/11/2020 at 23:25

BEYOND 2020 – World Sustainable Built Environment conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 588 (2020) 022069 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/588/2/022069

Sustainable building material selection: A case study in a

Japanese context

Atsushi Takano1, Masashi Aiki2 and Ryuto Yasunaga2

1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Architecture, Kagoshima University, Japan
2
Dept of Architecture, Kagoshima University, Japan

E-mail: takano@aae.kagoshima-u.ac.jp

Abstract. The aim of this study was to demonstrate how the choice of building material affects
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associate with the material production phase of a reference
building in a Japanese context. The trend of the emission and carbon storage capacity among the
five structural frame options was analysed at building, building element and material levels.
Based on the results, main points to mitigate the impact were also discussed. Since there thus far
been few similar studies in Japan, to aid informed decision making by professionals in the
construction industry was aimed, leading to improved sustainability in building design,
especially connected to SDGs 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure), 12 (Responsible
construction and production) and 13 (Climate action).

1. Introduction
The building sector has significant contribution to Humankind’s environmental, social and economic
footprints. Especially, a reduction in the environmental impact of a building is an important target in
terms of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. It is demanded achieving a sustainable and
comfortable living environment with the low impact buildings. As a building is a complex system based
on many different materials, the material selection directly influences the environmental impacts of a
building. Several researches have been reported the relationship between the choice of building materials
and the resulting impacts on a building. For instance, Thormark(1) studied the effect of material choice
on both the embodied energy and recycling potential in an energy efficient apartment block in Sweden.
He noted that the embodied energy could be reduced by approximately 17% (or increased by about 6%)
by implementing a simple material change. In addition, Takano et al.(2) investigated the influence of
building material selection on the embodied environmental impacts, environmental benefits and
materials costs of a building and showed the results as an index of relative difference between the
alternative materials studied.
In such background, the objective of this study was to demonstrate how the choice of building material
affects the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associate with the material production phase of a reference
building in a Japanese context. This study was carried out in a comparative manner among five
alternative structural frames (wooden post and beam frame (P&B), Cross Laminated Timber frame
(CLT), massive holz frame (MH), reinforced concrete frame (RC) and steel frame (Steel)), based on the
building materials typically used in Japan. It was intended to describe the general relationship between
the embodied GHG emissions of the building and building materials used rather than investigating the
effect of a specific material in detail. Since there thus far been few similar studies in Japan, to aid
informed decision making by professionals in the construction industry was aimed, leading to improved

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
BEYOND 2020 – World Sustainable Built Environment conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 588 (2020) 022069 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/588/2/022069

sustainability in building design, especially connected to SDGs 9 (Industry, innovation and

infrastructure), 12 (Responsible construction and production) and 13 (Climate action).

2. Methods
2.1. Reference building model
A two story hypothetical building model exemplified in a reference [3] was used as the case study building.
Table 1 shows the configuration of the main building elements and the total floor area of the alternative
structural frame options. Here the massive holz frame is a combination of wooden post and beam frame
and stacked sawn timber panel inserted in the frame as a seismic element. The composition of floor and
rood is the same as P&B, as shown in table 1. This construction system was locally developed in
Kagoshima, Japan, aiming for a simple and robust structural frame using as little metal joint as possible.
In order to observe the differences arising from the choice of the frame materials, other building
components (e.g. thermal insulation and finishing) were set to be as constant as possible. Regardless of
the frame options, each building element ha the same functional specifications (e.g. U-value; exterior
wall = 0.53W/m2K, floor = 0.34W/m2K, roof = 0.24W/m2K) in accordance with the Building Energy
Conservation Act[4] in Japan.
Table 1. The composition of the main parts of each method
Roof Exterior Wall Floor
Structural Total Floor area Thickness Thickness Thickness
2 Material Material Material
Frame [m ] [mm] [mm] [mm]
Roof tile 18 Wood board exterior cladding 18 Oak timber Flooring 15
Waterproof sheet - Cedar 30×30 30 Plywood 15
Cedar board 15 Ventilation layer - Cedar 45×105 105
Cedar 45×45 45 Breathable waterproof sheet - Thermal insulation 105
Thermal insulation 120 Cedar 105×105 105 Cedar 105×105 105
P&B 212
Cedar 45×30 30 Air layer - Breathable waterproof sheet -
Thermal insulation 30 Thermal insulation 65
Gypsum board 9 Airtight sheet -
Cedar 30×40 30
Boarding 12
Roof tile 18 Wood board exterior cladding 18 Oak timber Flooring 15
Waterproof sheet - Cedar 30×20 20 Plywood 15
Cedar board 15 Ventilation layer - Cedar 45×75 75
CLT 212
Cedar 45×45 45 Breathable waterproof sheet - Thermal insulation 75
Thermal insulation 140 Thermal insulation 40 CLT 105
CLT 90 CLT 105
Roof tile 18 Wood board exterior cladding 18 Oak timber Flooring 15
Waterproof sheet - Cedar 60×60 60 Plywood 15
Cedar board 15 Ventilation layer - Cedar 45×105 105
Cedar 45×45 45 Breathable waterproof sheet - Thermal insulation 105
MH 212
Thermal insulation 120 Thermal insulation 50 Cedar 105×105 105
Cedar 45×30 30 Stacked sawn timber 105 Breathable waterproof sheet -
Thermal insulation 30
Gypsum board 9
Asphalt waterproof sheet - Reinforced concrete 150 Oak timber Flooring 15
Mortar 50 Thermal insulation 50 Plywood 15
Reinforced concrete 150 Cedar 30×45 30 Cedar 45×120 120
Thermal insulation 150 Air layer - Air layer -
RC 256
Cedar 45×45 45 Plywood 12 Reinforced concrete 200
Cedar 45×45 45 Cedar 12 Thermal insulation 100
Plywood 9
Gypsum board 9
Waterproof sheet - ALC panel 50 Oak timber Flooring 15
Mortar 20 Steel LC-60×30×30×1.6 60 Plywood 15
Reinforced concrete 150 Thermal insulation 50 Cedar 55×60 60
Deck plate 1 Air layer - Air layer -
Thermal insulation 50 Steel LC-38×15×15×1.6 15 Cedar 90×90 90
Steel 256 Steel □-50×50×1.6 50 Air layer - Thermal insulation 90
Thermal insulation 50 Plywood 9 Reinforced concrete 120
Steel □-50×50×1.6 50 Cedar 12
Thermal insulation 50
Plywood 9
Gypsum board 9

2.2. Assessment method

GHG emission values for the material production phase of the reference building was calculated with
the IDEA’s (Inventory Database for Environmental Analysis [5]) data. IDES is a hybrid LCI (life cycle
inventory) database combining process-based and economic input-output based approaches regarding

2
BEYOND 2020 – World Sustainable Built Environment conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 588 (2020) 022069 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/588/2/022069

data collection. It contains more than 3800 process data and is the most widely used LCI database in
Japan today. The inventory was carried out from the working drawings in ARCHICAD. The quantity of
each building component was automatically calculated by the software and cross-checked with manual
calculation by authors. The components were converted to mass using the specific density of the
materials. The assessment was done by multiplying the unit values from IDEA, which are the values
derived from one m3 or kg of materials (kgCo2-e/m3 or kgCO2-e/kg) by the volume or mass of each
material. In addition, the amount of carbon contained in materials such as wood was evaluated as
temporary carbon storage during the operation period of the building[6]. Building service equipment and
furniture were excluded from the inventory. The total floor area of each frame option was used as the
functional unit for the evaluation.

3. Results and discussion

Figure 1 shows the GHG emission and the temporal carbon storage of the reference building with the
five structural frame options. Overall, wooden frame options (P&B, MH and CLT) has lower emission
than RC and steel frame options, and naturally carbon storage capacity is much higher in the wooden
options. As a result, carbon balance (GHG emission – carbon storage) becomes negative value in the
case of wooden structural frames. The main reason of high emission in RC and steel is a large amount
of concrete and steel used, discussed later in detail. The order of magnitude in both the emission and
carbon storage is CLT, MH and P&B, respectively. This result is mainly originated in the amount of
wood used in the structural frame as well as unit value of CLT as such, which is much higher than the
value of sawn timber. P&B seems to be the lowest impact option, but MH would be a reasonable as it
has slightly higher emission (about 1.2 times) and much larger carbon storage (about 2 times) than P&B
resulting in nearly the best carbon balance. As often discussed, massive timber construction has great
advantage to mitigate carbon footprint of a building thanks to renewability and carbon storage capacity
of wood. Here, it is also understood that massive holz with few metal connection and glue has a better
potential compared to engineering wood based massive timber construction, like CLT panel structure.

Figure 1. GHG emission and carbon storage of the Figure 2. GHG emission and carbon storage of the
reference building with five structural frame options reference building with the five structural frame options
according to building elements

3
 BEYOND 2020 – World Sustainable Built Environment conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 588 (2020) 022069 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/588/2/022069

Figure 2 shows the assessment results according to the

building elements (foundation, wall (including columns),
floor, roof and stair). The dominance of foundation is
relatively high in the all options, especially for the wooden
frame options. In the case of RC and steel frames, the
mission is remarkable in wall and floor. The reason why
the emission of wall in RC is high is that interior walls were
also modeled as reinforced concrete. In steel frame option,
ALC (Autoclaved Lightweight aerated Concrete) panel
used for the floor contributes to the high impact. These
points can be regarded as a potential to reduce the emission
by changing the materials. In the cases of MH and CLT,
large carbon storage can be seen in wall and floor, where
massive wood is used as a plate.
Figure 3 shows the share of building materials used in the
reference building with the five frame options. Reinforced
concrete is dominant in the all cases except steel frame
option. As also mentioned above, foundation should have
a priority to be considered in order to reduce the emission
for wood construction. The share of wooden materials is
much higher in MH and CLT compared to P&B. On the
other hand, the share of cement and gypsum is the other
way around. This is because massive wood, here stacked
sawn timber and CLT, acts as not only structural element, Figure 3. The share of each material used in the
reference building with the five structural frame
but also interior finishing and thermal insulation to some options
extent, leading to reduce secondary materials such as
gypsum board. This multifunctionality of massive wood gives great advantage for optimal carbon
footprint, reducing the use of non-renewable materials and increasing the carbon storage in a building.

4. Conclusion
This paper reported that the influence of building material choice on the GHG emissions associate with
the material production phase of a reference building in a Japanese context. The trend of the emission
and carbon storage capacity among the five structural frame options was analysed at building, building
element and material levels. Based on the results, main points to mitigate the impact were also discussed.
This kind of simple and comparative study would have a significant meaning, as a concrete starting
point, for Japanese building industry to discuss sustainable building construction, especially with regard
to responsible consumption and production as well as climate action set in SDGs.

References
[1] Thormark C 2006 The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling potential
of a building Build Environ. 41: 1019-1026.
[2] Takano A, Hughes M and Winter S 2014 A multidisciplinary approach to sustainable building
material selection: A case study in a Finnish context Build Environ. 82: 526-535.
[3] Iwashita Y, Hurumoto K, Okuya K and Isono S 2016 Architectural structure and construction
method (Tokyo: Inoue Shoin) pp 14-147
[4] Japan Sustainable Building Consortium: http://www.jsbc.or.jp/document/index.html (Accessed
December 4, 2019)
[5] Japan Environmental Management Association for Industry: http://www.jemai.or.jp/lca/idea/
(Accessed December 4, 2019)
[6] European Committee for Standardization EN 16449: 2014. Wood and wood-based products – Calculation
of the biogenic carbon content of wood and conversion to carbon dioxide.

View publication stats