Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.H. & T.M.; methodology, M.H., T.M. & H.G.; software, M.H.; validation, M.H., T.M. & H.G.; formal analysis, M.H.; investigation, M.H.; resources, M.H.; data curation, M.H.; writing original draft preparation, M.H.; writing, review and editing, M.H., T.M. & H.G.; visualization, M.H.; supervision, T.M. & H.G.; project administration, T.M.; funding acquisition, T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge Chris Baribeau, AIA, Principal and co-founder, Modus Studio, Leanne Baribeau, AIA, Architect, Modus Studio, Frank M. Allison, PE, President, Engineering Consultants Inc., Alex Font, PE, Senior Project Engineer at Engineering Consultants Inc., and Tyler Meenen, Assistant Project Manager at Nabholz Construction, for their help and support in providing the Revit model, the structures drawings, and related building materials information. Tom S. Chung, FAIA, Principal, Leers Weinzapfel Associates, graciously accepted to explain the process involved with the design of Adohi Hall and to share the related drawings. Antonio Guariento, President of New York-based Holzpak LLC, provided vital information related to the complex transportation journey of CLT from Austria to the site in Fayetteville, AR. The authors also acknowledge Greg Thoma of the University of Arkansas for providing access to SimaPro.
Figure 2.
Building life cycle stages (Adapted from LCA standard EN 15978 [
29]).
Figure 2.
Building life cycle stages (Adapted from LCA standard EN 15978 [
29]).
Figure 3.
Transportation path of CLT panels from Graz-Styria, Austria to Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Figure 3.
Transportation path of CLT panels from Graz-Styria, Austria to Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Figure 4.
Contributions to the GWP per tonne of CLT transportation from Graz-Styria, Austria to Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. (Left) SimaPro/Ecoinvent database, (right) Tally/GaBi database.
Figure 4.
Contributions to the GWP per tonne of CLT transportation from Graz-Styria, Austria to Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA. (Left) SimaPro/Ecoinvent database, (right) Tally/GaBi database.
Figure 5.
Comparing SimaPro/Ecoinvent & Tally/GaBi database—in terms of GWP impact (per tonne CLT) of each transportation category used in this study.
Figure 5.
Comparing SimaPro/Ecoinvent & Tally/GaBi database—in terms of GWP impact (per tonne CLT) of each transportation category used in this study.
Figure 6.
Analyzing GWP per tonne of CLT transportation, SimaPro-Ecoinvent database. (Left) Scenario2, (right) Scenario 3.
Figure 6.
Analyzing GWP per tonne of CLT transportation, SimaPro-Ecoinvent database. (Left) Scenario2, (right) Scenario 3.
Figure 7.
Comparing SimaPro-Ecoinvent and Tally-GaBi results for GWP potential of CLT transportation. (Left–right) Scenarios 1–3.
Figure 7.
Comparing SimaPro-Ecoinvent and Tally-GaBi results for GWP potential of CLT transportation. (Left–right) Scenarios 1–3.
Figure 8.
SimaPro & Tally results for each scenario, GWP per tonne CLT transportation).
Figure 8.
SimaPro & Tally results for each scenario, GWP per tonne CLT transportation).
Figure 9.
Comparing GWP characterization factor of one tonne.km transportation by container ship, train, and truck.
Figure 9.
Comparing GWP characterization factor of one tonne.km transportation by container ship, train, and truck.
Figure 10.
GWP characterization factors (per tonne.km) in each transportation category, comparing Ecoinvent and GaBi database.
Figure 10.
GWP characterization factors (per tonne.km) in each transportation category, comparing Ecoinvent and GaBi database.
Table 1.
Transportation from Graz-Styria, Austria to Site located at University of Arkansas campus, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Table 1.
Transportation from Graz-Styria, Austria to Site located at University of Arkansas campus, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
From | To | Transport System | Distance |
---|
Binderholz Company, Graz-Styria, Austria | Koper port, Slovenia | Truck | 248 km |
Koper port, Slovenia | Houston port, TX | Ship | 13,690 km |
Houston port, TX | Houston Railyard, TX | Truck | 4.8 km |
Houston Railyard, TX, | Dallas Railyard, TX | Train | 1375 km |
Dallas Railyard, TX | Adohi Hall site, Fayetteville, AR | Truck | 534 km |
Table 2.
The inventory data of transportation of CLT panels from Graz-Styria in Austria to Fayetteville in AR, USA.
Table 2.
The inventory data of transportation of CLT panels from Graz-Styria in Austria to Fayetteville in AR, USA.
| Activity | Scope of the Activity | Unit | Quantity |
---|
1 | Loading CLT packages to the trucks | Loading | Minute | 46 trucks × 40 min |
2 | Transportation from Binderholz company in Graz-Styria to Koper port, Slovenia | Transport by truck | Tonne.km | 1410 tonnes × 248 km |
3 | Loading CLT packages from trucks to the containers | Loading | Minute | 46 trucks × 40 min |
4 | Loading containers to the ship | Loading | Minute | 92 containers × 20 min |
5 | Transport from Koper port in Slovenia to Houston port in TX | Transport by ship | Tonne.km | 1410 tonnes × 13,690 km |
6 | Unloading containers from ship to the trucks | Unloading | Minute | 92 containers × 20 min |
7 | Transport from Houston port to Houston railyard | Transport by truck | Tonne.km | 1410 tonnes × 4.8 km |
8 | Unloading containers from trucks to the train | Unloading | Minute | 92 containers × 20 min |
9 | Transport from Houston railyard to Dallas railyard | Transport by train | Tonne.km | 1410 tonnes × 1375 km |
10 | Unloading containers from train to the trucks | Unloading | Minute | 92 containers × 20 min |
11 | Transport from Dallas railyard to the construction site | Transport by truck | Tonne.km | 1410 tonnes × 534 km |
12 | Unloading containers at the construction site | Unloading | Minute | 92 containers × 20 min |
Table 3.
The LCIs chosen for CLT transportation from Tally/GaBi database.
Table 3.
The LCIs chosen for CLT transportation from Tally/GaBi database.
Activity | LCI Source |
---|
Transportation by Container Ship | GLO: Container ship, 27,500 dwt 1 payload capacity, ocean going ts 2 (2017) US: Heavy fuel oil at refinery (0.3 wt.% S 3) ts (2014) |
Transportation by Rail | GLO: Rail transport cargo—Diesel, average train, gross tonne weight 1000 t/726 t payload capacity ts (2017) US: Diesel mix at filling station ts (2014) |
Transportation by Truck | US: Truck—Trailer, basic enclosed/45,000 lbs payload—8b 4 ts (2017) US: Diesel mix at filling station ts (2014) |
Table 4.
The LCIs chosen for CLT transportation from SimaPro/Ecoinvent database.
Table 4.
The LCIs chosen for CLT transportation from SimaPro/Ecoinvent database.
Activity | LCI Source |
---|
Transport by Ship | Transport, freight, sea, container ship {GLO} 1| market for transport, freight, sea, container ship | Cut-off 2 |
Transport by Rail | Transport, freight train {US} 3| market for | Cut-off |
Transport by Truck | Transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, euro5 {PER} 4| market for transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, EURO5 | Cut-off |
Transport by Truck | Transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, euro5 {RoW} 5| market for transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, EURO5 6 | Cut-off |
Operation Machin, Loading & unloading | Machine operation, diesel, ≥18.64 kW and <74.57 kW, high load factor {GLO}| market for | Cut-off |
Table 5.
GWP impacts per tonne CLT transportation from Graz-Styria in Austria to Fayetteville, AR, USA, comparing SimaPro-Ecoinvent database and Tally-GaBi database.
Table 5.
GWP impacts per tonne CLT transportation from Graz-Styria in Austria to Fayetteville, AR, USA, comparing SimaPro-Ecoinvent database and Tally-GaBi database.
| GWP Impacts per Tonne CLT Transportation |
---|
Activity (Process) Category | SimaPro | Tally | Difference% |
---|
Transport by Truck | 75.5 kg CO2 eq | 42.97 kg CO2 eq | 43% 1 |
Transport by ship | 127.9 kg CO2 eq | 328.66 kg CO2 eq | 61% |
Transport by Train | 77.27 kg CO2 eq | 59.28 kg CO2 eq | 23% |
Loading/Unloading | 4.67 kg CO2 eq | - | - |
Total | 285.34 kg CO2 eq | 430.91 kg CO2 eq | 34% |
Table 6.
LCIs of CLT panels from Seattle, WA, USA to Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Table 6.
LCIs of CLT panels from Seattle, WA, USA to Fayetteville, AR, USA.
| Activity | Scope of the Activity | Unit | Quantity |
---|
1 | Loading CLT packages to the trucks | Loading | Minute | 46 trucks × 40 min |
2 | Transport from company in Seattle to the railyard | Transport by truck | Tonne.km | 1410 tonnes × 9 km |
3 | Unloading CLT packages from trucks to the train | Loading | Minute | 46 trucks × 40 min |
4 | Transport from railyard in Seattle the railyard in Dallas | Transport by train | Tonne.km | 1410 tonnes × 2703 km |
5 | Unloading CLT packages from train to the trucks | Loading | Minute | 46 trucks × 40 min |
6 | Transport from railyard in Dallas to the construction site | Transport by truck | Tonne.km | 1410 tonnes × 534 km |
7 | Unloading at the site | Unloading | Minute | 46 trucks × 40 min |
Table 7.
LCIs of CLT panels from Conway, AR, USA to Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Table 7.
LCIs of CLT panels from Conway, AR, USA to Fayetteville, AR, USA.
| Activity | Scope of the Activity | Unit | Quantity |
---|
1 | Loading CLT packages to the trucks | Loading | Minute | 46 trucks × 40 min |
2 | Transport from company in Conway, AR to the site | Transport by truck | Tonne.km | 1410 tonnes × 255 km |
3 | Unloading at the site | Unloading | Minute | 46 trucks × 40 min |
Table 8.
LCIs from Tally/GaBi database for two assumed Nationally and locally produced CLT transportation scenarios (scenarios 2 and 3).
Table 8.
LCIs from Tally/GaBi database for two assumed Nationally and locally produced CLT transportation scenarios (scenarios 2 and 3).
Activity | LCI Resource |
---|
Transport by Truck | US: Truck—Trailer, basic enclosed/45,000 lb payload—8b ts (2017) US: Diesel mix at filling station ts (2014) |
Transport by Train | GLO: Rail transport cargo—Diesel, average train, gross tonne weight 1000 t/726 t payload capacity ts (2017) US: Diesel mix at filling station ts (2014) |
Table 9.
The LCIs chosen from SimaPro/Ecoinvent database for two assumed nationally and locally produced CLT transportation scenarios (scenarios 2 and 3).
Table 9.
The LCIs chosen from SimaPro/Ecoinvent database for two assumed nationally and locally produced CLT transportation scenarios (scenarios 2 and 3).
Activity | LCI Resource |
---|
Transport by Truck | Transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, euro5 {RoW}| market transport, freight, lorry >32 metric ton, EURO5 | Cut-off |
Transport by Rail | Transport, freight train {US}| market for | Cut-off |
Loading & unloading | Machine operation, diesel, ≥18.64 kW and <74.57 kW, high load factor {GLO}| market for | Cut-off |
Table 10.
GWP impacts per tonne CLT transportation for scenario 2, comparing SimaPro & Tally.
Table 10.
GWP impacts per tonne CLT transportation for scenario 2, comparing SimaPro & Tally.
Activity (Process) Category | GWP Impacts per Tonne CLT Transportation |
---|
SimaPro | Tally | Difference% |
---|
Transport by Truck | 50.35 kg CO2 eq | 29.66 kg CO2 eq | 41% |
Transport by Train | 151.9 kg CO2 eq | 116.53 kg CO2 eq | 23% |
Loading and unloading | 2.67 kg CO2 eq | - | - |
Total | 204.92 kg CO2 eq | 146.19 kg CO2 eq | 29% |
Table 11.
GWP impacts per tonne CLT transportation for scenario 3, comparing SimaPro & Tally.
Table 11.
GWP impacts per tonne CLT transportation for scenario 3, comparing SimaPro & Tally.
Activity (Process) Category | GWP Impacts per Tonne CLT Transportation |
---|
SimaPro | Tally | Difference% |
---|
Transport by Road, Truck | 23.65 kg CO2 eq | 13.93 kg CO2 eq | 41% |
Loading & unloading | 1.33 kg CO2 eq | - | - |
Total | 24.95 kg CO2 eq | 13.93 kg CO2 eq | 44% |
Table 12.
Comparing GWP impacts per tonne CLT transportation for each scenario.
Table 12.
Comparing GWP impacts per tonne CLT transportation for each scenario.
| GWP Impacts per Tonne CLT Transportation |
---|
SimaPro | Tally | Difference% |
---|
Scenario 1 | 285.34 kg CO2 eq | 430.91 kg CO2 eq | 34% |
Scenario 2 | 204.92 kg CO2 eq | 146.19 kg CO2 eq | 29% |
Scenario 3 | 24.95 kg CO2 eq | 13.93 kg CO2 eq | 44% |
Table 13.
GWP characterization factors (for per tonne.km) in each transportation category, comparing of Ecoinvent and GaBi database.
Table 13.
GWP characterization factors (for per tonne.km) in each transportation category, comparing of Ecoinvent and GaBi database.
Transport Type | Tool/Data Source | Emissions (per tkm) | Unit | Difference% |
---|
Container ship | SimaPro/Ecoinvent 3 | 0.009 | kg CO2 eq | 62% |
Tally/GaBi 2018 | 0.024 |
Rail, Train | SimaPro/Ecoinvent 3 | 0.056 | kg CO2 eq | 23% |
Tally/GaBi 2018 | 0.043 |
Road, Truck | SimaPro/Ecoinvent 3 | 0.093 | kg CO2 eq | 41% |
Tally/GaBi 2018 | 0.055 |
Table 14.
Contribution of each transportation type, ship, train, and truck travel in CLT transportation from Graz-Styria in Austria to Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Table 14.
Contribution of each transportation type, ship, train, and truck travel in CLT transportation from Graz-Styria in Austria to Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Transport Type | km | Percentage |
---|
Container ship | 13,960 | 86% |
Train | 1375 | 9% |
Truck | 787 | 5% |
Total | 15,852 | 100% |