A Resilience and Environmentally Sustainable Assessment Framework (RESAF) for Domestic Building Materials in Saudi Arabia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Policies and regulations
- Culture and traditions
- Public opinion/behavior
- Environmental factors
- Climate
- Geographical characteristics
- Systems and materials used in construction
- How resources are consumed
- The prospect for integration of renewable energy
2. RESAF: The Methodological Framework
- Domestic building plans and dimensions
- Location of the building
- Soil types at the location of the building (see: 2.1.3.3)
- Construction materials (types and quantities)
- Modes of transport and gate-to-grave (from the factory gate to the end of the use of the building) distances (where available)
- Detailing about wall and roof construction
- Glazing types (e.g., windows or skylights)
2.1. Part 1: Information and Details about Proposed House Building (Inputs)
2.1.1. Stage 1: Proposed Construction Material Selection for a House ‘Cradle-to-Gate’
2.1.2. Stage 2: Transport Selection from Gate-to-Grave
2.1.3. Stage 3: U-Value Calculations for Domestic Buildings
2.1.4. Stage 4: Assessing the Resilience of Possible Sustainable Solutions in the Future
- Green: condition highly likely to continue in the future;
- Amber: condition at risk in the future;
- Red: condition highly unlikely to continue in the future.
2.2. Outline of the Case Study
3. Results
3.1. Cradle-to-Gate
3.2. Gate-to-Grave
3.3. In-Use Consumption of Energy
3.4. Future Resilience of Material Choices
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Felimban, A.; Prieto, A.; Knaack, U.; Klein, T.; Qaffas, Y. Assessment of current energy consumption in residential buildings in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Buildings 2019, 9, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abd-ur-Rehman, H.M.; Al-Sulaiman, F.A.; Mehmood, A.; Shakir, S.; Umer, M. The potential of energy savings and the prospects of cleaner energy production by solar energy integration in the residential buildings of Saudi Arabia. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 1122–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almulhim, M.S.; Hunt, D.V.L.; Rogers, C.D.F. Framework for assessing the environmentally sustainable and resilience performance of domestic building materials in Saudi Arabia. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainability, Human Geography and Environment, Kraków, Poland, 28 November–2 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Alrashed, F.; Asif, M. Saudi building industry’s views on sustainability in buildings: Questionnaire survey. Energy Proced. 2014, 62, 382–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aldossary, N.A.; Rezgui, Y.; Kwan, A. Consensus-based low carbon domestic design framework for sustainable homes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 51, 417–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Susilawati, C.; Al Surf, M. Challenges facing sustainable housing in Saudi Arabia: A current study showing the level of public awareness. In Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 16–19 January 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Shaawat, M.E.; Jamil, R. A guide to environmental building rating system for construction of new buildings in saudi arabia. Emir. J. Eng. Res. 2014, 19, 47–56. [Google Scholar]
- SBC. Saudi Building Code National Committee. Available online: https://www.sbc.gov.sa/en/NationalCommittee/Pages/PublicConsultation.aspx (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- El Mallakh, R. Saudi Arabia: Rush to Development (RLE Economy of Middle East): Profile of an Energy Economy and Investment; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Tamimi, N. A state-of-the-art review of the sustainability and energy efficiency of buildings in Saudi Arabia. Energy Effic. 2017, 10, 1129–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, F.; Rehman, S.; Abdul-Majeed, M.A. Overview of energy storage systems for storing electricity from renewable energy sources in Saudi Arabia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshahrani, J.; Boait, P. Reducing High Energy Demand Associated with Air-Conditioning Needs in Saudi Arabia. Energies 2019, 12, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ramírez-Villegas, R.; Eriksson, O.; Olofsson, T. Life Cycle Assessment of Building Renovation Measures–Trade-off between Building Materials and Energy. Energies 2019, 12, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fenner, A.E.; Kibert, C.J.; Woo, J.; Morque, S.; Razkenari, M.; Hakim, H.; Lu, X. The carbon footprint of buildings: A review of methodologies and applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 94, 1142–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindan, K.; Shankar, K.M.; Kannan, D. Sustainable material selection for construction industry–A hybrid multi criteria decision making approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 1274–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, C.D.; Bouch, C.J.; Williams, S.; Barber, A.R.; Baker, C.J.; Bryson, J.R.; Chapman, D.N.; Chapman, L.; Coaffee, J.; Jefferson, I. Resistance and resilience–paradigms for critical local infrastructure. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. Munic. Eng. 2012, 165, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akadiri, P.O.; Chinyio, E.A.; Olomolaiye, P.O. Design of a sustainable building: A conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings 2012, 2, 126–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berardi, U. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: Rating systems and rated buildings. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 20, 411–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lombardi, D.; Leach, J.; Rogers, C.; Aston, R.; Barber, A.R.G.; Boyko, C.; Brown, J.; Bryson, J.R.; Butler, D.; Caputo, S.; et al. Designing Resilient Cities; IHS BRE Press: Berkshire, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Sharifi, A. A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 69, 629–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rogers, C.D.; Hunt, D.V. Realising Visions for Future Cities: An Aspirational Futures Methodology. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Urban Des. Plan. 2019, 172, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alshehri, S.A.; Rezgui, Y.; Li, H. Delphi-based consensus study into a framework of community resilience to disaster. Nat. Hazards 2015, 75, 2221–2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marjaba, G.; Chidiac, S. Sustainability and resiliency metrics for buildings—Critical review. Build. Environ. 2016, 101, 116–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lizarralde, G.; Chmutina, K.; Bosher, L.; Dainty, A. Sustainability and resilience in the built environment: The challenges of establishing a turquoise agenda in the UK. Sustain. Cit. Soc. 2015, 15, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roostaie, S.; Nawari, N.; Kibert, C. Sustainability and resilience: A review of definitions, relationships, and their integration into a combined building assessment framework. Build. Environ. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burroughs, S. Development of a tool for assessing commercial building resilience. Proced. Eng. 2017, 180, 1034–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markelj, J.; Kitek Kuzman, M.; Grošelj, P.; Zbašnik-Senegačnik, M. A simplified method for evaluating building sustainability in the early design phase for architects. Sustainability 2014, 6, 8775–8795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Böschen, S.; Binder, C.R.; Rathgeber, A. Resilience constructions: How to make the differences between theoretical concepts visible? In Resilience in Social, Cultural and Political Spheres; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
- Champagne, C.L.; Aktas, C.B. Assessing the resilience of LEED certified green buildings. Proced. Eng. 2016, 145, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mortada, H. Sustainable desert traditional architecture of the central region of Saudi Arabia. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 24, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Gahtani, K.; Alsulaihi, I.; El-Hawary, M.; Marzouk, M. Investigating sustainability parameters of administrative buildings in Saudi Arabia. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 105, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rashid, A.F.A.; Yusoff, S. A review of life cycle assessment method for building industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 244–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bakhoum, E.S.; Brown, D.C. Developed sustainable scoring system for structural materials evaluation. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 138, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaidroos, A.; Krarti, M. Optimal design of residential building envelope systems in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Energy Build. 2015, 86, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, Y.; Wu, P. Economic sustainability, environmental sustainability and constructability indicators related to concrete-and steel-projects. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 748–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alrashed, F.; Asif, M.; Burek, S. The role of vernacular construction techniques and materials for developing zero-energy homes in various desert climates. Buildings 2017, 7, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Wolf, C.E.L.; Brütting, J.; Fivet, C. Embodied Carbon Benefits of Reusing Structural Components in the Built Environment: A Medium-rise Office Building Case Study. In Proceedings of the 34th PLEA Conference, Smart & Healthy within the 2 Degree Limit, Hong Kong, China, 10–12 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Asif, M. Growth and sustainability trends in the buildings sector in the GCC region with particular reference to the KSA and UAE. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 1267–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alyami, S.H.; Rezgui, Y.; Kwan, A. Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 27, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshuwaikhat, H.; Mohammed, I. Sustainability matters in national development visions—Evidence from Saudi Arabia’s Vision for 2030. Sustainability 2017, 9, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Attia, M.K.M. LEED as a tool for enhancing affordable housing sustainability in Saudi Arabia: The case of Al-Ghala project. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2013, 2, 224–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alyami, S.H.; Rezgui, Y.; Kwan, A. The development of sustainable assessment method for Saudi Arabia built environment: Weighting system. Sustain. Sci. 2015, 10, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Government of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia’s Vision for 2030; Saudi Vision 2030:Saudi Arabia; 2016. Available online: https://vision2030.gov.sa/sites/default/files/report/Saudi_Vision2030_EN_2017.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2017).
- Taleb, H.M.; Sharples, S. Developing sustainable residential buildings in Saudi Arabia: A case study. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldossary, N.A.; Rezgui, Y.; Kwan, A. An investigation into factors influencing domestic energy consumption in an energy subsidized developing economy. Habitat Int. 2015, 47, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, A.N.; Jensen, R.L.; Larsen, T.S.; Nissen, S.B. Early stage decision support for sustainable building renovation—A review. Build. Environ. 2016, 103, 165–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moretti, L.; Mandrone, V.; D’Andrea, A.; Caro, S. Comparative “from cradle to gate” life cycle assessments of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) materials. Sustainability 2017, 9, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jacquemin, L.; Pontalier, P.-Y.; Sablayrolles, C. Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the process industry: A review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 1028–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hammond, G.; Jones, C. Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 2.0; University of Bath: Bath, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kupwade-Patil, K.; De Wolf, C.; Chin, S.; Ochsendorf, J.; Hajiah, A.E.; Al-Mumin, A.; Büyüköztürk, O. Impact of Embodied Energy on materials/buildings with partial replacement of ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) by natural Pozzolanic Volcanic Ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashemi, A.; Cruickshank, H.; Cheshmehzangi, A. Environmental impacts and embodied energy of construction methods and materials in low-income tropical housing. Sustainability 2015, 7, 7866–7883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vilches, A.; Garcia-Martinez, A.; Sanchez-Montanes, B. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of building refurbishment: A literature review. Energy Build. 2017, 135, 286–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammond, G.; Jones, C. Embodied Carbon: The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE); BSRIA: Bracknell, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy. Government Emission Conversion Factors for Greenhouse Gas Company Reporting: Conversion Factors 2018—Full Set (for Advanced Users); Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy: London, UK, 2018.
- Ranganathan, J.; Corbier, L.; Bhatia, P.; Schmitz, S.; Gage, P.; Oren, K. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition); World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Reilly, A.; Kinnane, O. The impact of thermal mass on building energy consumption. Appl. Energy 2017, 198, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). CIBSE Guide A, Environmental Design; CIBSE: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Everett, B. Energy in Buildings Course; The Open University: Milton Keynes, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- ASHRAE. Handbook of Fundamentals. SI Edition; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ciulla, G.; Lo Brano, V.; Moreci, E. Degree days and building energy demand. In Proceedings of the 3rd Southern African Solar Energy Conference (SASEC), Kruger National Park, South Africa, 11–13 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Indraganti, M.; Boussaa, D. A method to estimate the heating and cooling degree-days for different climatic zones of Saudi Arabia. Build. Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 2017, 38, 327–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, C.D. Engineering future liveable, resilient, sustainable cities using foresight. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 2018, 171, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Asif, M.; Dehwah, A.; Ashraf, F.; Khan, H.; Shaukat, M.; Hassan, M. Life cycle assessment of a three-bedroom house in Saudi Arabia. Environments 2017, 4, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kisku, N.; Joshi, H.; Ansari, M.; Panda, S.; Nayak, S.; Dutta, S.C. A critical review and assessment for usage of recycled aggregate as sustainable construction material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 131, 721–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeo, D.; Gabbai, R.D. Sustainable design of reinforced concrete structures through embodied energy optimization. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 2028–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monahan, J.; Powell, J.C. An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern methods of construction in housing: A case study using a lifecycle assessment framework. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balaguera, A.; Carvajal, G.I.; Albertí, J.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P. Life cycle assessment of road construction alternative materials: A literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, S.T.; Wong, J.M.; Skitmore, S.; Veronika, A. Carbon dioxide reduction in the building life cycle: A critical review. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2012, 165, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vukotic, L.; Fenner, R.; Symons, K. Assessing embodied energy of building structural elements. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2010, 163, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çengel, Y.; Ghajar, A. Heat and Mass Transfer: Fundamentals and Applications, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Aldossary, N.A.; Rezgui, Y.; Kwan, A. Establishing domestic low energy consumption reference levels for Saudi Arabia and the Wider Middle Eastern Region. Sustain. Cit. Soc. 2017, 28, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunt, D.V.; Lombardi, D.R.; Atkinson, S.; Barber, A.R.; Barnes, M.; Boyko, C.T.; Brown, J.; Bryson, J.; Butler, D.; Caputo, S.; et al. Scenario archetypes: Converging rather than diverging themes. Sustainability 2012, 4, 740–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Magueta, D.; Madaleno, M.; Dias, M.F.; Meireles, M. New cars and emissions: Effects of policies, macroeconomic impacts and cities characteristics in Portugal. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stichnothe, H.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle assessment of recycling PVC window frames. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 71, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alaidroos, A.; Krarti, M. Impact of passive cooling strategies on energy consumption reduction of residential buildings in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In Proceedings of the ASME 2019 13th International Conference on Energy Sustainability (ES2019), San Diego, CA, USA, 28 June–2 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Alshehri, S.A.; Rezgui, Y.; Li, H. Public perception of the risk of disasters in a developing economy: The case of Saudi Arabia. Nat. Hazards 2013, 65, 1813–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alshehri, S.A.; Rezgui, Y.; Li, H. Disaster community resilience assessment method: A consensus-based Delphi and AHP approach. Nat. Hazards 2015, 78, 395–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
No | Necessary Conditions |
---|---|
1 | Availability of proposed materials |
2 | Bounce back ability of the building |
3 | Absence of other environmental considerations |
4 | Minimum building code requirements |
5 | Environmental footprint of transport |
6 | Public acceptance of sustainable solutions |
Necessary Conditions | New Sustainability Paradigm | Policy Reform | Market Forces |
---|---|---|---|
(A) | “Green” | “Green” | “Green” |
(B) | “Green” | “Green” | “Amber” |
(C) | “Red” | “Amber” | “Red” |
Material | Type | Quantity (Unit) | Quantity (Kg) | Specifications and Purpose |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ready-mix concrete | (25–30 MPa) - 100% Portland cement (CEM I) | 31.57 m3 | 76,084 | Plain concrete for blinding (below foundations, ground beams) |
Ready-mix concrete | (28–35 MPa) - 100% Portland cement (CEM I) | 772.79 m3 | 1,870,152 | Reinforced concrete for foundations, beams, columns, slabs, stairs |
Cement | Mortar (1:3 cement: sand mix)1 | 130.13 m3 | 247,247 | Top-of-floor slab to receive finishes, concrete blocks insulation, and plastering for exterior and internal walls |
Steel | Reinforcement steel1 | - | 37,912 | Steel rebar for concrete structure elements |
Timber | Plywood1 | 3923.83 m2 | 32,960 | Formworks in construction process for concrete structure elements |
Precast concrete | (25–30 MPa) - 100% Portland cement (CEM I) | 5.76 m2 | 2082 | Exterior wall cladding |
Block | Autoclaved aerated block | 7335 pieces | 88,020 | Filling the empty spaces in the two-way ribbed slabs |
Block | Concrete block: (12 MPa) | 2819 pieces | 95,846 | Masonry solid blocks for foundation walls |
Block | Concrete block: (8 MPa) | 27,226 pieces | 787,160 | Masonry hollow blocks for external and internal walls |
Insulation (plastics) | General Polyethylene2 | 1175.17 m2 | 171.04 | Below foundation, slab and ground beam |
Insulation | Expanded Polystyrene2 | 16.61 m3 | 531.52 | Thermal insulation, 50mm thickness |
Soil | General Aggregate1 | 16.61 m3 | 37,206 | Roof deck |
Timber | Laminated veneer lumber2 | 3.52 m3 | 2816 | Doors |
Glass | Toughened glass2 | 1.06 m3 | 2650 | Windows |
Aluminum | General Aluminium1,2 | 1.79 m3 | 4833 | Window framing and doors |
Carpet | Wool | 105.86 m2 | 253 | Flooring |
Stone | Granite1 | 426.72 m2 | 7373 | Building facade stone finish |
Paint | General paint2 | 3331.93 m2 | 337 | Internal and external walls |
Clay | Clay Tiles1 | 111.30 m2 | 1268 | Roof tiles (external finish) |
Plastics | PVC Pipe1,3 | 1736.70 m | 2417 | Plumbing and electrical pipes |
Ceramic | General ceramic1 | - | 8499 | Floors, walls and skirting tiles |
Stone | Marble tiles1 | - | 13,344 | Floors, walls and skirting tiles |
Material | Embodied Carbon kgCO2e | % |
---|---|---|
Ready-mix concrete | 287,434 | 46.94 |
Block (concrete products) | 86,716 | 14.16 |
Steel | 70,517 | 11.51 |
Cement (mortar) | 54,642 | 8.92 |
Aluminum | 44,270 | 7.23 |
Timber | 38,087 | 6.22 |
Aggregate and sand | 8155 | 1.33 |
Plastics | 7810 | 1.28 |
Ceramics | 6629 | 1.08 |
Glass | 3578 | 0.58 |
Insulation | 1749 | 0.29 |
Carpet | 1484 | 0.24 |
Paint | 983 | 0.16 |
Precast concrete | 352 | 0.06 |
Total | 612,406 | 100.00 |
Material | Embodied Energy (MJ) | % |
---|---|---|
Ready-mix concrete | 1,845,880 | 31.84 |
Steel | 954,248 | 16.46 |
Block (concrete products) | 841,504 | 14.52 |
Aluminum | 749,115 | 12.92 |
Timber | 521,155 | 8.99 |
Cement (mortar) | 328,839 | 5.67 |
Plastics | 163,213 | 2.82 |
Aggregate and sand | 128,596 | 2.22 |
Ceramics | 101,988 | 1.76 |
Glass | 62,275 | 1.07 |
Insulation | 47,093 | 0.81 |
Carpet | 26,830 | 0.46 |
Paint | 23,646 | 0.41 |
Precast concrete | 2832 | 0.05 |
Total | 5,797,214 | 100.00 |
Material | Type | Embodied Carbon kgCO2e | Total Saving (%) | Embodied Energy (MJ) | Total Saving (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ready-mix Concrete | 100% Portland cement (CEM I) | 287,434 | 1,845,880 | ||
Ready-mix Concrete | Replacing cement with 15% fly ash | 267,972 | 7 | 1,747,808 | 5 |
Ready-mix Concrete | Replacing cement with 30% fly ash | 240,648 | 16 | 1,592,109 | 14 |
Ready-mix Concrete | Replacing cement with 25% blast furnace slag | 230,993 | 20 | 1,611,571 | 13 |
Ready-mix Concrete | Replacing cement with 50% blast furnace slag | 170,736 | 41 | 1,339,859 | 27 |
Old Proposed Option | New Proposed Option | |
---|---|---|
Blocks (concrete products) | Autoclaved aerated block: 7335 pieces, Concrete block (12 MPa): 2819 pieces and Concrete block (8 MPa): 27,226 pieces | Concrete block (12 MPa): 2819 pieces and Concrete block (8 MPa): 34,561 pieces |
Embodied kgCO2e | 86,716 kgCO2e | 67,730 kgCO2e (22% saving) |
Embodied energy (MJ) | 841,504 MJ | 624,314 MJ (26% saving) |
Building Elements | Details | U-Value (W/m²K) | Area (m2) | Contribution to Heat Gain or Loss Coefficient (W K–1) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Roof 1 | Ceramic (20 mm), polyurethane (0.20 mm), polystyrene ‘extruded’ (20 mm), bitumen (4 mm), cement mortar ‘1650 kg/m³’ (10 mm), reinforced concrete (200 mm) | 0.95 | 175 | 165.57 |
Roof 2 | Gravel (30 mm), polyurethane (0.20 mm), polystyrene ‘extruded’ (20 mm), bitumen (4 mm), cement mortar ‘1650 kg/m³’ (10 mm), reinforced concrete (200 mm) | 0.91 | 175 | 159.04 |
Wall 1 | Granite (20 mm), masonry block (200 mm), polystyrene ‘extruded’ (20 mm), cement mortar ‘1650 kg/m³’ (10 mm) | 0.87 | 580 | 503.22 |
Wall 2 | Masonry block, (200 mm), polystyrene ‘extruded’ (20 mm), cement mortar ‘1650 kg/m³’ (20 mm) | 0.862 | 290 | 249.84 |
Window | Double glazing, aluminum frame, air-filled, low-emissivity: εn = 0.1 ‘soft coat’, 12 mm gap between panes, and 8 mm thermal break | 2.50 | 133.20 | 333 |
Ground floor | Land soil type is sand or gravel, and polystyrene ‘extruded’ (20 mm) is used for the insulation. | 0.41 | 381 | 156.21 |
Options | Proposed Changes to Elements1 | Saving Percentage in Energy Consumption or Embodied Carbon (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Walls and Roofs | Windows | ||
1 | Increase extruded polystyrene from 20 mm to 30 mm | No changes | 13 |
2 | Increase extruded polystyrene from 20 mm to 30 mm | Replace the double glazing with triple glazing and keep the aluminum frame | 17 |
3 | Increase extruded polystyrene from 20 mm to 30 mm | Replace the double glazing with triple glazing and change to PVC frame | 19 |
Aspects | Base Case 1 | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Changes to minimize the embodied energy and carbon from materials | No changes | Use ready-mix concrete, replacing the cement with 50% blast furnace slag; replace autoclaved aerated blocks with concrete blocks (8 MPa) | ||
Changes to minimize the in-use energy (1) | No changes | No changes | Increase extruded polystyrene from 20 mm to 30 mm | Increase extruded polystyrene from 20 mm to 30 mm |
Changes to minimize the in-use energy (2) | No changes | No changes | Replace the double glazing with triple glazing and keep the aluminum frame | Replace the double glazing with triple glazing and replace with PVC frame |
Embodied energy from materials | 5,797,214 MJ or 1,610,466 kWh | 5,074,003 MJ or 1,409,558 kWh (12.48% savings) | 5,128,687 MJ or 1,424,749 kWh (11.53% savings) | 5,016,377 MJ or 1,393,449 kWh (13.47% savings) |
Embodied carbon from materials | 612,406 kgCO2e | 476,722 kgCO2e (22.16% savings) | 479,386 kgCO2e (21.72 % savings) | 472,019 kgCO2e (22.92% savings) |
Yearly energy consumption (in-use stage) | 176,295 kWh (198 kWh/m2) | 176,295 kWh (198 kWh/m2) (no savings) | 145,792 kWh (164 kWh/m2) (17% savings) | 142,266 kWh (160 kWh/m2) (19% savings) |
Yearly embodied carbon (in-use stage) | 127,990 kgCO2e (144 kgCO2e/m2) | 127,990 kgCO2e (144 kgCO2e/m2) (no savings) | 103,285 kgCO2e (119 kgCO2e/m2) (17% savings) | 103,285 kgCO2e (116 kgCO2e/m2) (19% savings) |
Necessary Conditions | New Sustainability Paradigm (NSP) | Policy Reform (PR) | Market Forces (MF) |
---|---|---|---|
Availability of proposed materials | Availability is less well-considered initially and partially replacement of cement with other substitutes (PFA or GGBS) ensues. With time availability becomes a concern as does the reliance of coal for PFA production. “Amber” | Availability is less well-considered. Domestic building policies require a minimum cement replacement in order to help meet carbon targets which are a primary focus. “Red” | Concerned with developing a market to increase the demand for these materials for concrete factories; this is accompanied by an increased search for other substitutes (options such as pozzolans) to meet the policy standards. “Red” |
Bounce back ability of the building | Partially replacement of cement with other substitutes (PFA or GGBS) is readily endorsed as it avoids waste and reduces carbon – Bounce back is less well considered. “Amber” | Long term resilience of the material itself is less well-considered than ability to meet carbon targets - a strict structure design requirement for cement replacement is set. “Red” | The market is concerned with minimizing costs by following exact design principles (i.e., original minimum compressive strength), longevity is considered only where a costs and liability occur. “Amber” |
Absence of other environmental considerations | The importance of replace high impact materials as aluminum frames with other types (e.g., PVC) is an initial priority. As durability concerns are raised sustainable alternatives are proposed. “Green” | As durability concerns are raised about resilience of materials to hot weather conditions, policy reacts. A dual approach is adopted; use of recycled PVC in frame production; adoption of PVC frames with triple glazing adopted in cities with lower temperatures; retain aluminum frames with triple glazing for hot regions. “Amber” | The market is interested in meeting the conditions for a reasonable low cooling and heating energy to avoid other environmental concerns. “Red” |
Minimum building code requirements | A target of maximum U-values, annual energy consumption and other building material specifications are readily and willingly exceeded. “Green” | Building regulations set ever tighter U-values for building elements (e.g., yearly energy consumption), this includes a maximum embodied carbon threshold for materials use. “Amber” | MF implements these rules gradually rather than immediately stimulating new markets. The bare minimum is achieved, exceedance occurs only where a Market advantage is served. “Amber” |
Environmental footprint of transport | NSP considers whole life costing in order to ensure the environmental footprint of transport is considered in whole. “Amber” | Where the material comes from is less important than meeting targets and ticking checklist, whilst promotion for transportation (with low carbon emissions) is regulated and enforced the bigger picture is sometime missed. “Amber” | Any attempt to minimize the transportation of goods (construction materials) is considered purely on an economics basis – if it saves money it is readily adopted. Only where a long-term interest for the building is served will a higher price be paid for reducing the footprint. “Amber” |
Public acceptance of sustainable solutions | Public ability to accept these changes (people’s behavior), is high especially when it comes to understanding sustainable concerns. “Amber” | Acceptance is enforced by policy rather than being readily accepted. Acceptance is promoted through education and by simplifying environmental figures to formats readily understood by the public. “Green” | Acceptance has to be carefully thought through- by presenting carbon numbers in terms of savings percentages (e.g., a homeowner will save 17% of their bill rather than a homeowner will save 17% energy); prompt sustainability and resilience through social networking applications. “Green” |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Almulhim, M.S.M.; Hunt, D.V.L.; Rogers, C.D.F. A Resilience and Environmentally Sustainable Assessment Framework (RESAF) for Domestic Building Materials in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3092. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083092
Almulhim MSM, Hunt DVL, Rogers CDF. A Resilience and Environmentally Sustainable Assessment Framework (RESAF) for Domestic Building Materials in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability. 2020; 12(8):3092. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083092
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlmulhim, Mohammad S. M., Dexter V. L. Hunt, and Chris D. F. Rogers. 2020. "A Resilience and Environmentally Sustainable Assessment Framework (RESAF) for Domestic Building Materials in Saudi Arabia" Sustainability 12, no. 8: 3092. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083092