Life Cycle Assessment of the Environmental Benefits of Using Wood Products and Planting Trees at an All-Electric University Laboratory
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
- How end-of-life benefits from wood products are calculated and reported in LCA?
- How the benefits of biogenic carbon storage in wood products are estimated?
- How the benefits of carbon sequestration from trees are estimated?
- What are the LCA standards addressing the calculations related to biogenic carbon?
- Is there any standard (ISO, EN, ILCD, PAS) that provides credits for delayed emissions?
2.1. LCA Studies in the Literature
2.2. LCA Standards
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Life Cycle Assessment of Future Buildings Laboratory
3.2. Case Study Building Description
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Scenario 1: Wood Incineration with Energy Recovery
Avoided Emissions | = | (–) | Total mass of wood products | × | Heating value of wood | × | Quebec’s electricity grid GHG intensity | (1) |
4.2. Scenario 2: Wood Landfilling
4.3. Scenario 3: Wood Reusing
4.4. Biogenic Carbon in Wood Products (Storage)
4.5. Biogenic Carbon in Trees (Carbon Sequestration)
4.6. Assumptions, Uncertainties, and Limitations
- As per ISO 21930 [22], for wood products entering the building system, the benefits from considering the biogenic carbon may only be accounted when the wood originates from sustainably managed forests (e.g., certified by Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Canadian Standards Association (CSA)).
- The extent of wood degradation in landfills (i.e., GHG emissions from wood decay) may vary depending on the landfill design and location.
- In the wood reusing scenario, the benefits from wood products in module D were calculated based on potential emissions avoided from manufacturing the exact same product. However, in practice, part of the wood waste may be redirected as raw material for secondary applications and partly directly reused.
- Only three species of trees have been considered in the current study. If other species (having different carbon sequestration rates) had been included, the impact mitigation results could have been different.
- Since the lab is not yet in operation at full capacity, the annual electricity consumption considered in the LCA was based on the energy simulation results with EnergyPlus, as described in Grossi et al. [28].
- The indirect benefits of trees such as energy savings, wildlife conservation, and air quality, as well as the impacts related to land-use change in FBL’s garden were not addressed in this paper’s scope.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E. Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. Environ. Pollut. 2001, 116, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levasseur, A.; Lesage, P.; Margni, M.; Samson, R. Biogenic Carbon and Temporary Storage Addressed with Dynamic Life Cycle Assessment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 17, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brandão, M.; Levasseur, A.; Kirschbaum, M.U.F.; Weidema, B.; Cowie, A.; Jørgensen, S.V.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Pennington, D.W.; Chomkhamsri, K. Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dornburg, V.; Marland, G. Temporary storage of carbon in the biosphere does have value for climate change mitigation: A response to the paper by Miko Kirschbaum. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2008, 13, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, Z.; Gu, H.; Bergman, R.D.; Liang, S. Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of a High-Rise Mass Timber Building with an Equivalent Reinforced Concrete Alternative Using the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierobon, F.; Huang, M.; Simonen, K.; Ganguly, I. Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: An LCA based comparative case study in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 26, 100862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cesprini, E.; Resente, G.; Causin, V.; Urso, T.; Cavalli, R.; Zanetti, M. Energy recovery of glued wood waste—A review. Fuel 2020, 262, 116520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ximenes, F.; Björdal, C.; Cowie, A.; Barlaz, M. The decay of wood in landfills in contrasting climates in Australia. Waste Manag. 2015, 41, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Padgett, J.M.; Powell, J.S.; Barlaz, M.A. Decomposition of forest products buried in landfills. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 2267–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Micales, J.A.; Skog, K.E. The decomposition of forest products in landfills. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 1997, 39, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ximenes, F.A.; Björdal, C.; Kathuria, A.; Barlaz, M.A.; Cowie, A. Improving understanding of carbon storage in wood in landfills: Evidence from reactor studies. Waste Manag. 2019, 85, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Höglmeier, K.; Weber-Blaschke, G.; Richter, K. Potentials for cascading of recovered wood from building deconstruction—A case study for south-east Germany. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 78, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besserer, A.; Troilo, S.; Girods, P.; Rogaume, Y.; Brosse, N. Cascading Recycling of Wood Waste: A Review. Polymers 2021, 13, 1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Titunin, A.; Vakhnina, T.; Susoeva, I.; Titunin, A., Jr. Use of Soft Wood Waste in the Production of Wood Particle Boards. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Construction, Architecture and Technosphere Safety, ICCATS 2022, Sochi, Russia, 4 September 2022. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Radionov, A.A., Ulrikh, D.V., Timofeeva, S.S., Alekhin, V.N., Gasiyarov, V.R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 308, pp. 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araujo, A.; da Silva, N.; Sá, T.; Caldas, L.; Filho, R.T. Potential of Earth-Based Bamboo Bio-Concrete in the Search for Circular and Net-Zero Carbon Solutions to Construction Industry. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1122, 012043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ercan, E.E.T.; Andreas, L.; Cwirzen, A.; Habermehl-Cwirzen, K. Wood Ash as Sustainable Alternative Raw Material for the Production of Concrete—A Review. Materials 2023, 16, 2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- ISO 14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- European Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute for Environment and Sustainability. EUR 24708 EN; International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment—Detailed Guidance. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, Switzerland, 2010.
- EN 15978; Sustainability of Construction Works. Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings. Calculation Method. EN-BN: London, UK, 2011.
- EN 15804+A2; Sustainability of Construction Works—Environmental Product Declarations—Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products. EN-BN: London, UK, 2019.
- ISO 21930; Sustainability in Buildings and Civil Engineering Works—Core Rules for Environmental Product Declarations of Construction Products and Services. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
- EN 16449; Wood and Wood-Based Products—Calculation of the Biogenic Carbon Content of Wood and Conversion to Carbon Dioxide. EN-BN: London, UK, 2014.
- PAS-2050, Publicly Available Specification. Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services; BSI-British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Levasseur, A.; Lesage, P.; Margni, M.; Deschênes, L.; Samson, R. Considering Time in LCA: Dynamic LCA and Its Application to Global Warming Impact Assessments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 3169–3174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, P.M.; Wilson, C. An equivalence factor between CO2 avoidedemissions and sequestration—Description andapplications in forestry. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2000, 5, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogtländer, J.G.; van der Velden, N.M.; van der Lugt, P. Carbon sequestration in LCA, a proposal for a new approach based on the global carbon cycle; cases on wood and on bamboo. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossi, F.; Ge, H.; Zmeureanu, R.; Baba, F. Feasibility of Planting Trees around Buildings as a Nature-Based Solution of Carbon Sequestration—An LCA Approach Using Two Case Studies. Buildings 2023, 13, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Dong, L. Comparison of Carbon Emissions in the Whole Life Cycle of Buildings of Different Structural Types. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Green Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (GEESD2022), Rome, Italy, 18–19 May 2023; Volume 23, pp. 979–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, S.; Gu, H.; Bergman, R.; Kelley, S.S. Comparative life-cycle assessment of a mass timber building and concrete alternative. Wood Fiber Sci. 2020, 52, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hafner, A.; Schäfer, S. Comparative LCA study of different timber and mineral buildings and calculation method for substitution factors on building level. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 630–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, J.M.; Hosanna, H.R.; Willson, B.; Quinn, J.C. Whole life embodied emissions and net-zero emissions potential for a mid-rise office building constructed with mass timber. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2023, 35, e00528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guardigli, L.; Monari, F.; Bragadin, M.A. Assessing Environmental Impact of Green Buildings through LCA Methods: Acomparison between Reinforced Concrete and Wood Structures in the European Context. Procedia Eng. 2011, 21, 1199–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tellnes, L.G.F.; Rønning, A.R. Modelling options for module C and D: Experiences from 50 EPD for wood-based products in Norway. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 323, 012052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Delem, L.; Wastiels, L. Module D in the Building Life Cycle: Significance Based on a Case Study Analysis. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 290, 012042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhavsar, R.; Cupido, A.; Arriaga, M. Mohawk College’s net zero energy and zero carbon building: A living lab for high efficiency and renewable energy technologies in buildings. J. Green Build. 2020, 15, 185–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oreskovic, L.; Gupta, R.; Strong, D. In-use energy and carbon performance of a true zero carbon housing development in England. Sci. Technol. Built Environ. 2021, 27, 1425–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evolv-1, Office Building from The Cora Group Real Estate. ZCB-Design Certification in April 2018/ZCB-Performance Certification in April 2020; LEED Platinum: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2018; Available online: https://portal.cagbc.org/cagbcdocs/zerocarbon/CaGBC_evolv1_Case_Study_EN.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2022).
- International Energy Agency. Solar PV Global Supply Chains, Paris. License: CC BY 4.0. 2022. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains (accessed on 2 April 2023).
- Climate Transparency, Climate Transparency Report: Comparing G20 Climate Action Towards Net Zero (China). 2021. Available online: https://www.climate-transparency.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CT2021China.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2023).
- Luo, H.; Liu, X.; Anderson, B.C.; Zhang, K.; Li, X.; Huang, B.; Li, M.; Mo, Y.; Fan, L.; Shen, Q.; et al. Carbon sequestration potential of green roofs using mixed-sewage-sludge substrate in Chengdu World Modern Garden City. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 49, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuittinen, M.; Moinel, C.; Adalgeirsdottir, K. Carbon sequestration through urban ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 563–564, 623–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- One Click LCA. Helsinki: One Click LCA Ltd. 2023. Available online: https://www.oneclicklca.com/construction/life-cycle-assessment-software/ (accessed on 20 March 2023).
- StatCan. Provincial and Territorial Energy Profiles—Canada. 2021. Available online: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles/provincial-territorial-energy-profiles-canada.html (accessed on 7 March 2023).
- UL Environment. Product Category Rules for the Life Cycle Assessment and Requirements on the Project Report, Part B: Structural and Architectural Wood Products EPD Requirements, v1.1. 2020. Available online: https://www.shopulstandards.com/ProductDetail.aspx?UniqueKey=36412 (accessed on 10 March 2023).
- Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Canadian Softwood Plywood. Prepared for the Canadian Wood Council. 2018. Available online: http://www.athenasmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CtoG-LCA-of-Canadian-Plywood.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
- FPInnovations. Product Category Rules: North American Structural and Architectural Wood Products. June 2015, Version 2. Environmental Product Declaration of North American Softwood Lumber. 2015. Available online: https://web.fpinnovations.ca/category/wood-products-blog/ (accessed on 10 March 2023).
- Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Canadian Surfaced Dry Softwood Lumber. Prepared for the Canadian Wood Council. 2018. Available online: http://www.athenasmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CtoG-LCA-of-Canadian-Surfaced-Dry-Softwood-Lumber.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
- WRCLA-Western Red Cedar Lumber Association. Typical Western Red Cedar Bevel Siding, 1/2 x 6 Clear Grade, Painted. 2018. Available online: https://library.fpinnovations.ca/en/viewer?file=%2fmedia%2fWP%2f7906.pdf#phrase=false&pagemode=bookmarks (accessed on 10 March 2023).
- FPInnovations. Product Category Rules: North American Structural and Architectural Wood Products. Environmental Product Declaration of Typical Western Red Cedar, April 2011. Available online: https://web.fpinnovations.ca/environmental-product-declarations-services/ (accessed on 10 March 2023).
- Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Canadian Glulam. Prepared for the Canadian Wood Council. 2018. Available online: http://www.athenasmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CtoG-LCA-of-Canadian-Glulam.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
- Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. A Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Canadian Wood I-Joist Manufacture. Prepared for the Canadian Wood Council. 2013. Available online: http://www.athenasmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/CtoG-LCA-of-Canadian-I-Joist-Manufacture-Update.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2023).
- Tree Canada, Canada’s Arboreal Emblems: Ontario—Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus)/New Brunswick—Balsam Fir (Abies balsamea)/Manitoba—White Spruce (Picea glauca). 2023. Available online: https://treecanada.ca/resources/canadas-arboreal-emblems/ (accessed on 21 March 2023).
- Energy Information Administration (EIA). Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings, U.S. Department of Energy, Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program. 1998. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/method-calculating-carbon-sequestration-trees-urban-and-suburban-settings.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2023).
- Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.E.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Walton, J.T.; Bond, J. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboric. Urban For. 2008, 34, e347–e358. Available online: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/19526 (accessed on 20 September 2022). [CrossRef]
- Nowak, D.J.; Greenfield, E.J.; Hoehn, R.E.; Lapoint, E. Carbon storage and sequestration by trees in urban and community areas of the United States. Environ. Pollut. 2013, 178, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pasher, J.; McGovern, M.; Khoury, M.; Duffe, J. Environment Canada—Carbon storage and sequestration by Canada’s urban forests using high resolution earth observation data. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 484–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Modules | Result Category | Global Warming Potential (kgCO2eq over 60 years) * | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
SCENARIO 1 Wood Incineration w/Energy Recovery | SCENARIO 2 Wood Landfilling | SCENARIO 3 Wood Reusing | ||
A1–A3 | Construction Materials | 55,715 | 55,715 | 55,715 |
A4 | Transportation to site | 2131 | 2131 | 2131 |
A5 | Construction/installation processes | 2614 | 2606 | 2602 |
B4–B5 | Material replacement and refurbishment | 14,291 | 14,291 | 14,291 |
B6 | Energy consumption | 5445 | 5445 | 5445 |
C1–C4 | End-of-life process (transport, processing, disposal) | 3139 | 2930 | 2809 |
TOTAL | Impacts from modules A to C | 83,338 | 83,121 | 82,995 |
D | Benefits beyond building’s life (wood products) | −1070 | 0.00 | −7473 |
D | Benefits beyond building’s life (other products) | −10,533 | −10,533 | −10,533 |
Other | Benefits biogenic carbon in wood products | 0.00 | −32,220 | −32,318 |
Other | Benefits biogenic carbon in trees (CO2 sequestration) | −19,361 | −19,361 | −19,361 |
TOTAL | Benefits from module D + biogenic carbon | −30,964 | −62,115 | −69,686 |
TOTAL | Final balance (impacts + benefits) | 52,373 | 21,006 | 13,309 |
GWP [kgCO2eq over 60 Years; (% Carbon Reduction) *] | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Material Type | Benefit | SCENARIO 1 Wood Incineration w/Energy Recovery | SCENARIO 2 Wood Landfilling | SCENARIO 3 Wood Reusing |
Wood | Energy for district heating (avoided grid-mix emissions) | −1070 (1.3%) | 0.00 (0.0%) | 0.00 (0.0%) |
Landfill disposal (no direct benefits from EOL treatment) | 0.00 (0.0%) | 0.00 (0.0%) | 0.00 (0.0%) | |
Reuse material (avoided emissions from new manufacturing) | 0.00 (0.0%) | 0.00 (0.0%) | −7473 (9.0%) | |
Plastic | Energy for district heating (avoided grid-mix emissions) | −186 (0.2%) | −186 (0.2%) | −186 (0.2%) |
Steel | Recycling (avoided emissions from new manufacturing) | −10,296 (12.4%) | −10,296 (12.4%) | −10,296 (12.4%) |
Gypsum | Recycling (avoided emissions from new manufacturing) | −50 (0.1%) | −50 (0.1%) | −50 (0.1%) |
Inert | Landfill disposal (no direct benefits from EOL treatment) | 0.00 (0.0%) | 0.00 (0.0%) | 0.00 (0.0%) |
Module D, benefits from end-of-life treatment | −11,603 (14.0%) | −10,533 (12.7%) | −18,006 (21.7%) | |
Wood | Biogenic carbon in products (permanent storage) | 0.00 (0.0%) | −32,220 (38.8%) | −32,318 (38.9%) |
Trees | Biogenic carbon in trees (carbon sequestration and storage) | −19,361 (23.2%) | −19,361 (23.3%) | −19,361 (23.3%) |
Benefits from biogenic carbon | −19,361 (23.2%) | −51,581 (62.1%) | −51,679 (62.2%) | |
TOTAL BENEFITS (module D + biogenic carbon) | −30,964 (37.2%) | −62,115 (74.8%) | −69,686 (83.9%) |
Components | Value | Unit | Source |
---|---|---|---|
Total mass of wood products | 20,913 | kg wood | Design specifications |
Heating value of wood (approx.) | 5.00 | kWh/kg wood | One Click LCA, 2023 |
Quebec’s electricity grid GHG intensity | 0.010234 * | kgCO2eq/kWh | StatCan 2020; Ecoinvent 3.4 |
Wood Product | Value | Unit | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Softwood plywood | 0.39 | kgCO2eq/kg wood | Athenasmi [46]; PCR FPInnovations [47] |
Softwood lumber | 0.14 | kgCO2eq/kg wood | UL Env. PCR Part B [45]; Athenasmi [48]; |
W. red cedar bevel siding | 1.07 | kgCO2eq/kg wood | WRCLA [49]; PCR FPInnovations [50] |
Glued Laminated Timber | 0.39 | kgCO2eq/kg wood | Athenasmi [51]; PCR FPInnovations [47] |
I-joist manufacturing | 0.33 | kgCO2eq/kg wood | Athenasmi, [52]; PCR FPInnovations, [50] |
Tree Specie | Carbon Sequestration (kgCO2eq/Unit*Year) | Tree Height (m) | Crown Width (m) | Life Span (Years) | No. Trees Planted (Units) | Sequestration Over 60 Years (kgCO2eq) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eastern white pine | 47.82 | 30 | 10–12 | 200+ | 1 | −2869 |
White spruce | 25.33 | 25 | 4–6 | 200+ | 10 | −15,200 |
Balsam fir | 10.77 | 25 | 5–7 | 80+ | 2 | −1292 |
TOTALS | 13 | −19,361 |
Total Carbon Sequestration (kgCO2eq Over 60 Years) | Annual Carbon Sequestration per Area (kgCO2eq/m2 Tree Cover) | Calculation Methods/References | |
---|---|---|---|
Results from Grossi et al. [28] | 14,145 | 0.575 | Nowak et al. [55,56] Pasher et al. [57] |
Results from this paper | 19,361 | 0.787 | One Click LCA [43] EIA [54], TreeCanada [53] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Grossi, F.; Ge, H.; Zmeureanu, R. Life Cycle Assessment of the Environmental Benefits of Using Wood Products and Planting Trees at an All-Electric University Laboratory. Buildings 2023, 13, 1584. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071584
Grossi F, Ge H, Zmeureanu R. Life Cycle Assessment of the Environmental Benefits of Using Wood Products and Planting Trees at an All-Electric University Laboratory. Buildings. 2023; 13(7):1584. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071584
Chicago/Turabian StyleGrossi, Felipe, Hua Ge, and Radu Zmeureanu. 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of the Environmental Benefits of Using Wood Products and Planting Trees at an All-Electric University Laboratory" Buildings 13, no. 7: 1584. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071584