Environmental audits of alternate structural systems for warehouse buildings

J. COLE,DAVIDROUSSEAU,
RAYMOND AND STEPHEN
TAYLOR
Environnlental Research Group, School of Architecture, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada V6T 122
Received July 16, 1991
Revised manuscript accepted February 17, 1992

This paper presents example environmental audits for four alternate structural systems used in typical warehouse
buildings: concrete masonry, tilt-up wall, steel system, and wood. An environmental audit as defined in this work is
an evaluation of the "debit side" impacts, in terms of energy consumption and environmental emissions, incurred
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Depository Services Program on 11/17/14

in the extraction and processing of materials for building products to the point where they are ready to install in a building.
Though comprehensive auditing methods will eventually become available, the work reported in this paper incorporates
energy and air pollution audits as the most currently accessible and quantifiable indicators based on available data.
The analysis shows that massive structural systems are inherently more energy intensive than lightweight ones by virtue
of the mass of material in the walls which dominates the relatively lightweight horizontal structures common to all.
Moreover, their CO, and other air pollution indices are also significantly higher. The long span members are the dom-
inant single energy and pollution component in the environmental audit of a structural system, accounting for between
74% and 79% of the total energy required for production of materials, and contributing from 59% to 79% of the
aggregate air pollution from manufacturing industries. Of the lightweight examples, the steel frame building was the
least energy intensive by a small margin, while the wood frame contributed least to CO, emission by a substantial
margin.
Key words: audit, energy, environment, pollution, structure, warehouse.

Cet article prisente des exemples d'analyses environnementales adaptCes a quatre types de construction d'entrep6ts :
maqonnerie, murs Criges par relevage, acier et bois. Aux fins du present travail, une analyse environnementale se dkfinit
comme une Cvaluation des impacts imputables a la consommation d'energie et aux emissions polluantes au cours de
l'extraction et du traitement des matkriaux jusqu'au moment de la construction du b%timent.
For personal use only.

Bien que des mithodes d'analyse exhaustives seront Cventuellement mises au point, celles dont il est fait mention
dans cet expose offrent les indicateurs de mesure d'knergie et de pollution de I'air les plus accessibles et quantifiables
qui soient pour le moment, compte tenu des donnees disponibles.
L'analyse montre que les structures massives sont en soi plus Cnergivores que les structures ICgkres, Ctant donne la
masse imposante des murs qui domine les structures horizontales relativement 1Cgeres communes aux quatre types CtudiCs.
De plus, l'indice de CO, et les autres indices de pollution atmospherique sont considkrablement plus Clevis. Les sections
a longue portie constituent l'element dominant de consommation d'inergie et de pollution de l'analyse environnementale
d'une structure, car elles consomment de 74% 21 79% de l'energie necessaire a la production des materiaux et contribuent
entre 59% et 79% de la pollution atmospherique totale produite par les fabricants. Parmi les structures lCgkres analysees,
la structure d'acier s'est averee la moins Cnergivore par une faible marge, tandis que la structure de bois est celle ayant
contribue la plus faible emission de CO,, et ce par une marge considerable.
Mots elks : analyse, Cnergie, environnement, pollution, structure, entrep6t.

[Traduit par la rkdaction]

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 19, 886-895 (1992)

1. Introduction perceives buildings. The significance for the construction

The significance and urgency attached to global environ-
mental degradation has prompted a search for environmen-
tal criteria to guide policy and decision-making in all sectors;
the building industry is no exception. Since decisions by
architects and engineers can have considerable impact on
both the local and global environment, attention will turn
firmly and permanently to these professions to see how they
are exercising their responsibility (Bradman 1989). Conse-
quently, ensuring that the materials and systems used in con-
struction minimize impact on the global and regional envi-
ronment will increasingly be an emphasis in practice.
Changing the economic equation to include current hidden
environmental costs and to restrain the rapid depletion of
certain resources will also radically affect the way the public
NOTE: Written discussion of this paper is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until February 28, 1993 (address inside
front cover).
Prinlcd in Canada / Imprirnf au Canada
industry will be the expansion of environmental auditing to
include the assessment of resources and raw material con-
sumption which form the built environment, and ensuring
that these resources are used more efficiently in the future
(Lorch 1990).
The work reported here forms part of a continuum in both
national and international research which addresses the com-
plex field of establishing "environmental costs" for natural
resource consumption and production in the building indus-
try. The earliest efforts in this area were undertaken in the
U.S. in the mid 1970s by Stein et al. (1976) and by the U.S.
National Research Council Committee on Renewable
Resources in Manufacturing (CORRIM 1976) who evaluated
the energy cost and resource-use implications of the mate-
rials used in several alternate building constructions. More
recently, work in New Zealand (Baird and Chan 1983) and
Finland (Salokangas et al. 1990) has led to a more detailed
understanding of the total energy costs of housing construc-

TABLE1. Air emission by fuel and use
co2 Particulates
Fuel/Use (g/MJ)
Distillate oil (conventional), 0.5% S 72.1
Natural gas 50.5
Coal (butiminous), 3% S 87.5
Coal fired electricity 248.9
Canadian electricity* 52.3
*Electricity production: Canadian split (62% hydro, 20.1% coal, 16% thermonuclear, 0.5% gas, and 1.4% oil). Based on 35% overall efficiency
for thermal production.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Depository Services Program on 11/17/14
tion. For the most part, these models deal strictly with energy
costs which, although they are a useful indicator of envi-
ronmental impact, are not a complete accounting of envi-
ronmental costs.
In the past 5 years, however, more complete models which
account for environmental pollution in the form of gaseous
emissions of oxides of sulfur, oxides of nitrogen, carbon
dioxide, and several other factors incurred in the produc-
tion of buildings are being developed, which offer a more
comprehensive evaluation of the comparative environmen-
tal advantages of one building material or system over
another (Kohler 1991; Russell et al. 1990). The work pre-
sented in this paper is part of an ongoing research effort
to evaluate the energy and environmental costs of commer-
cia1 building production in Canada. It entails the evalua-
For personal use only.
I
tion of statistical and engineering data on numerous indus-
tries, compilation of unit energy and emissions factors for
production of materials used in buildings, and the structur-
I tive materials and processes involved in the creation of a
I ing of a spreadsheet tool for evaluating a component, an
I assembly, or an entire building (Cole and Rousseau 1990).
This paper presents the environmental audits for four
alternate structural systems used in typical warehouse build-
ings. Though comprehensive auditing methods will even-
tually become available, which evaluate broader aspects of
resource consumption, environmental pollution, habitat
loss, and other "difficult to quantify" environmental fac-
tors, the work reported in this paper incorporates energy
and air pollution emissions as the most currently accessible
and quantifiable indicators based on available data. The
evaluation method currently incorporates the energy require-
ments and air emissions for
the extraction, benefication, and transportation of raw
materials;
the primary processing (such as smelting, milling, drying,
machining, chemical synthesis), including transportation
energy to the secondary stages;
the secondary fabrication, assembly, etc. of actual build-
ing components where applicable.
It does not include transportation to the building site or con-
struction energy and pollution.
The value of the example audits presented here is primarily
to enhance the design community's understanding of the
environmental cost of building construction. Furthermore,
the audits offer direction to the designers and manufacturers
of specific systems and components as well as policy-makers.
2. Environmental audits
An environmental audit for building construction is an
accounting of the quantifiable energy and pollution factors
that will be incurred in the production of a building and its
COLE ET AL. 887
so2 NO, CO HC
(g/MJ) (g/M J) (g/MJ) (g/MJ) (g/MJ)
0.0065 0.23 0.2 0.015 0.0020
0.006 0.0002 0.09 0.007 0.0080
0.11 0.85 0.27 0.060 0.0030
0.31 2.36 0.75 0.170 0.0080
0.07 0.50 0.16 0.040 0.0017
use, reducing them to equivalent terms and presenting them
in meaningful categories. An environmental audit as used
in this work is a "debit side" accounting limited to the
extraction, transportation, and processing of materials.
Clearly, there are also many other complex, non-quantifiable
factors that are significant in fully evaluating the environ-
mental consequences of building construction, but for which
there are currently no accepted evaluation standards.
An environmental audit includes both energy- and non-
energy-related air emissions factors. The former are typically
gaseous oxides from combusion, while the latter are more
often particulates and gaseous hydrocarbons. Though this
is a useful distinction for purposes of analysis, in many pro-
duction processes the differences between these factors are
not precise.
2.1. Energy-related factors
It is possible to establish an energy figure for all respec-
building component, convert them to a common energy unit,
and aggregate them to establish its energy intensity in mega-
joules per unit mass, unit area, or unit volume. This is
usually termed "energy intensity'' and is derived both from
analyses of statistics on energy purchases and production
by industries and from engineering analyses of energy flows
in industrial processes.
In environmental terms, energy intensity figures alone are
less significant than the fuel mix that comprises them. The
energy quantity by fuel type is typically grouped into at least
five categories: refined petroleum, natural gas, coal, elec-
tricity, and other, each of which has different emission fac-
tors for C 0 2 , particulates, SO2, NO,, CO, and hydrocar-
bons for a given combustion method. The proportions of
these vary significantly with the type of fuel and the
combustion efficiency.
2.2. Non-energy-related factors
Energy-related emissions account for only a portion of
overall environmental effects from an industrial process.
Process emissions are the direct result of smelting, kilning,
distilling, drying, grinding, casting, and all other industrial
processes exclusive of direct fuel combustion. These include
some of the same categories of emissions associated with
fuel combustion identified above as well as a very wide range
of other particulate and gaseous compounds. These addi-
tional compounds each have their own characteristics and
environmental consequences, ranging from relatively benign
dusts to highly toxic heavy metals and environmentally
persistent halogen compounds.
Non-energy-related air emissions are relatively easy to
characterize with some accuracy, but are difficult to quan-
 888 CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL.
TABLE2. National ambient air quality objectives
Particulates
Concentration limit (g/m3) 0.00012
tify. For example, dusts of predictable types are inevitably
produced by dry milling processes, but varying degrees of
dust controls are in place and varying amounts of trapped
dusts are returned to the process. Data available on
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Depository Services Program on 11/17/14
estimated "fugitive emissions" from most industrial pro-
cesses compiled by governmental regulatory agencies form
the basis for the evaluation in this work. The non-energy
pollutants considered here are particulates, SOz, CO, and
HC.
3. Framework and boundaries of audits
Energy values, energy-related emissions, and non-energy-
related emissions have been calculated for major building
materials used in commercial construction. These have been
structured as a data base organized by five fuel types and
, six emissions categories. Table 1 shows typical emissions
expressed as g/MJ for common stationary (non-transpor-
tation) uses of conventional fuels at typical efficiencies
(Environment Canada 1985; Statistics Canada 1986; U.S.
For personal use only.
EPA 1989; Marland and Rotty 1983). Electricity is appor-
tioned using the Canadian national mix of thermal and
hydro electricity production (Cole and Rousseau 1991).
The environmental audit begins by disaggregating the
building system or component into its individual materials
according to mass. The mass of the individual material is
I then multiplied by the unit factors in the data base. The first
~
I
step in the process produces energy figures by material and,
through multipliers derived from Table 1, the associated air
emissions from energy use. The second step produces non-
energy-related pollution figures through multipliers derived
from industry emissions compiled by Environment Canada
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Environ-
ment Canada 1990; U.S. EPA 1989). The resulting values
from both steps are then compiled into an output spread-
sheet which aggregates the figures into indices described in
Sect. 4.
The energy and pollution values of a material are
influenced by what is included in and what is excluded from
their derivation. It can therefore be said that there is no abso-
lute or correct energy intensity or pollution cost of a mate-
rial (Kohler 1987). Assessment of energy and pollution
figures must, therefore, be undertaken using careful defini-
tions and clear boundaries. The limits used in the data anal-
ysis in the work presented here are consistent with the level I1
standard set by the International Federation of Institutes
for Advanced Studies (IFIAS) and commonly capture about
90% of the gross energy requirements of a manufactured
item (Baird and Chan 1983). These are
Extraction. The steps required for the extraction of raw
materials used as feedstock for a primary industry are
assessed. The production of extraction machinery, road and
plant construction, and other extraction-related inputs are
not included.
Transportation. Shipment of materials from the mine
or forest is included in the analysis. In some cases, such as
19, 1992
so2 NO, CO
0.00003 0.00006 0.006
sand and gravel, this is the final step, as the material is
already a building product.
Primary processing. Where applicable, the steps
required for primary processing are assessed. The structure
of the statistical data is such that operating energy used in
heating and lighting buildings and fleet fuel use are included.
The production of machinery and buildings used for pro-
cessing is not included. In some cases, such as sawn lumber
products, this is the final step.
Transportation. Where applicable, transportation from
a primary plant to a secondary plant is assessed. The figures
are based on typical distances and transport methods in
Canada.
Secondary processing. Where applicable, the steps
required for secondary processing are assessed. Again, the
production of machinery and buildings used for secondary
processing is not included. In most cases, secondary pro-
cessing is the final step in producing materials ready for
delivery to a building.
Transportation of materials and components from the last
production phase to the building site have not been included
at this time because they are not attributes of the material
itself. Transportation costs are widely variable between spe-
cific building sites, material sources, and transportation
methods. A transportation module capable of accepting
input variables is planned for the future.
On-site construction energy inputs were not included in
the analysis of these examples. Though on-site construction
energy has been found to typically represent 7%-10% of
the total energy use in building production for simple build-
ing types (Baird and Chan 1983; Salokangas et al. 1990),
the differences between construction energy in the four
examples considered in this paper are likely to be a relatively
insignificant variable in the total analysis.
4. Audit categories
The complexity of design often precludes a thorough and
complete understanding of technical detail. Designers have
historically preferred information that reduces the complex-
ity of technical phenomena to relatively simplified indicators
of performance. As such, an underlying premise of the work
presented in this paper is that the large body of complex
data on the energy and environmental implications of pro-
ducing building materials must be reduced to manageable
terms in order to be useful in an environmental evaluation
of buildings. Some data can be readily reduced to a com-
mon unit while others cannot, and are more appropriately
left discrete. Given the commonalities and the differences
of energy-related and non-energy-related air emissions, the
following approach has been adopted for summarizing them
on a common basis.
4.1. Energy and fuels
The total energy is the amount of energy used to produce
the structural components, expressed in per square metre
of floor area, including feedstock energies, i.e., the gross
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Depository Services Program on 11/17/14
FIG. 1. Plan of warehouse used in analysis. Note: Bay size is 6 m for steel system building.
For personal use only.
thermal content of petroleum feedstocks for synthetic resins.
These are summed to give a total embodied energy per
square metre of floor area for the building structure. This
energy total, which was grouped according to five fuel types
for analysis, has been aggregated into fossil and other fuels
and electricity for the output tables. The fossil fuels include
coal, natural gas, and refined petroleum consumed in the
production of the component materials. Other fuels repre-
sent mainly the wood waste burned in producing manufac-
tured wood products, waste materials burned in cement
kilns, etc.
4.2. Air emission index
To overcome the difficulty of compiling the effects of dif-
ferent air pollutants, several European researchers employ
an accounting system based on volume equivalents, in which
accepted limiting values are used to determine the volume
of air that is polluted with a certain contaminant up to a
limiting value (Kohler 1991). The resulting polluted or con-
sumed volumes of air are therefore equivalent units and can
then be combined and used as simple indices to evaluate the
degree of environmental air pollution associated with the
material or component. For example, where the output of
SO2 is y mg, and the permissible level of SO2 is x mg/m3
of air, it can be transformed into cubic metres (m3) of air
contaminated to the allowable limit by y / x (m3).
A critical decision within this approach to aggregating air
contaminants is the choice of permissible concentrations
(Kohler and Liitzkendorf 1990). Legislated concentration
limits, which are inevitably derived through compromise
rather than direct health criteria, can relate either to emis-
sion rates from the plant or, more stringently, to ambient
air quality. The volume equivalents approach is suitable for
four of the major air contaminants that are usually regulated
in national ambient air quality programs:
particulates from fuel combustion;
SO2 from both energy- and non-energy-related processes;
NO, from energy-related processes; and
CO from both energy- and non-energy-related processes.
The air emissions index is the aggregate of the volume
equivalents generated from these four emission categories.
In the work reported in this paper, the ambient air qual-
ity objectives set by the Canadian Environmental Protec-
tion Act (see Table 2 ) have been chosen provisionally until
international criteria for environmental auditing have been
agreed upon. Although the concentrations specified in the
National Ambient Air Standards are very low, and thus yield
very high volumes of contaminated air, they do provide a
useful relative basis for weighting the importance of different
air pollutants. The important criterion is clearly the relative
acceptable concentrations of the various contaminants.
Given that the significance of an air pollution index is not
in the actual units (m3, for example) used, but in com-
parisons between the magnitudes of the index derived for
various materials or assemblies, they have been reduced by
an arbitrary factor of lo5. This gives the air emissions
index a more manageable scale.
4.3. Carbon dioxide
COz release from fuel combustion can be simply
summarized as the mass of C 0 2 created by the production
of a unit of building material. Concentration limits are not
applicable in the case of C 0 2 , so it is simply presented as
the "major greenhouse gas contribution" of the material
or assembly. Although it is not a complete model for
greenhouse gases (which should rightly include methane,
NO,, etc.), C 0 2 is the dominant component.
4.4. Other air pollution indices
Other air pollutant quantities are more difficult to con-
vert into a common factor because they comprise a collec-
tion of a number of different chemical compounds with
 CAN. J. CIV.
FIG. 2. Section of concrete block o r tilt-up wall warehouse.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Depository Services Program on 11/17/14
FIG. 3. Section of steel system warehouse.
For personal use only.
FIG. 4. Section of timber frame warehouse.
widely varying environmental risks, each of which has to
be evaluated separately. At this stage in the development
of the air pollution indices, these are grouped together in
two categories and presented in association with the final
air emissions factor. The categories are the following:
Particulates from non-energy-related processes;
combined particulates from processes based on the emission
factors and typical control-efficiencies from the data.
Fugitive hydrocarbons from both energy- and non-
energy-related processes, also incorporating typical control
efficiencies. These reflect emissions from boilers, coal
coking, polymer production, degreasing, etc.
Both particulates and hydrocarbons represent far too wide
a range of chemical compounds to convert readily to air
emissions factors at this time, and are therefore presented
separately. Further development of the air pollution indices
will lead to a more detailed evaluation of the environmen-
tal impact of the various particulate emissions and fugitive
hydrocarbons through assessing their various chemical cat-
egories and utilizing applicable concentrations for each.
Once this is accomplished, they will be in comparable terms
and can be added to the air emissions factor.
5. Application of environmental audits
The most basic use of data on the environmental cost of
materials is the comparison of single material options for
a particular application. However, with the possible excep-
tion of interior finishes, materials used in building are gen-
erally associated with several other materials as a "build-
ENG. VOL. 19, 1992
ing system". The most useful comparisons using
environmental auditing are those that compare major
assemblies or systems offering comparable performance.
Cole and Rousseau, for example, have made a comparative
evaluation of four nonstructural wall systems commonly
found in Canadian commercial buildings, all with similar
thermal performance (Cole and Rousseau 1992).
5.1. Choice of comparable structural systems
The current example of environmental auditing presented
here is an evaluation of four alternate structural systems
commonly used in warehouse construction in Canada.
Industrial and commercial construction comprised 27% of
the value of construction in Canada in 1990 (Statistics
Canada 1991).
The specific building type is a single-storey industrial style
building, typical of one that might be used for warehous-
ing or light industry, or in a more finished form as a retail
mall or warehouse style grocery or merchandise outlet.
Though for these various applications the interiors would,
of course, be quite different, the general structure and
enclosure could be quite similar.
The building type lends itself to comparisons of alternate
structural systems because many different systems are
applicable to it:
reinforced unit masonry walls, tilt-up concrete panels, or
wood frame walls;
wood flange with steel web joists or all-steel bar joists;
laminated wood beams or steel "I" beam;
pre-engineered all-steel frame and cladding systems.
 COLE ET AL.
Two general categories embracing this range of structural
systems are massive and lightweight wall constructions. The
alternatives for the horizontal members in these examples
are primarily steel or wood.
The building plan (Fig. 1) shows a simple slab on grade
floor of 3240 m2 with a 15 x 9 m or 15 x 6 m bay size.
The largest span is 15 m, which is appropriate for all steel
or composite members. The four systems chosen for this
analysis are the following:
1. 200 mm concrete block perimeter walls on a con-
tinuous strip footing, grouted and reinforced at 1.2 m inter-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Depository Services Program on 11/17/14
vals; 175 X 175 mm HSS columns at 9 m on-centre (O.C.)
supporting I section steel beams; steel bar joists at 1.9 m
O.C.; 22 gauge steel roof deck: rigid glass-fiber roof deck
insulation and a built-up tar and gravel roofing membrane
(Fig. 2).
2. 150 mm concrete tilt-up perimeter walls with roof sys-
tem as above.
3. A pre-engineered steel system building comprised of
pre-manufactured steel rigid frames at 6 m O.C.; steel wall
girths at 1.5 m O.C. with 0.47 mm steel cladding; steel roof
purlins at 1.2 m O.C. and 0.76 mm steel roofing with
sprayed cellulose insulation inside (Fig. 3).
4. 38 x 240 mm wood stud infill walls on a continuous
strip footing with plywood sheathing and metal cladding;
275 x 275 mm glued laminated columns at 9 m O.C. sup-
porting glue laminated beams; wood flange and steel tube
For personal use only.
web roof joists with plywood decking, rigid glass-fiber roof
deck insulation, and a built-up tar and gravel roofing mem-
brane (Fig. 4).
The building elements were proportioned to meet design
and climatic criteria applicable to Vancouver (Taylor 1981).
The snow loads of 1.6 kN/m2 and the bearing capacity of
the soil of 200 kN/m2 are assumed to be the same in all
cases. The components selected for the audit of the struc-
ture were those that are unique and essential to each com-
plete structural system. For example, the roof insulation was
included, since it is an integral part of a flat membrane roof,
whereas the wall insulation was excluded because it does not
fulfill a similar function. It should be noted that in the
Vancouver climate, which is the location of the example,
the simplest buildings of this type are used for warehouse
or industrial purposes and generally only contain insulation
in the roof where it prevents overheating in summer and
helps to reduce the thermal extremes that the membrane is
subiected to. The more comvlex uses of this building type
are>etail or other uses where far more finishing, thermal
insulation, and servicing is required. Since all are assumed
to have an identical concrete slab floor, it is not included
in the comparative analysis, thereby placing more emphasis
on the alternate structural components. Future extensions
of the auditing work will incorporate interior finishing, ther-
mal insulation, servicing, mechanical and electrical systems,
etc.
6. Observations
Figures 5-7 and Table 3 present the summary and detailed
energy and air pollution values of each structural system.
The following observations can be made:
6.1. Massive versus lightweight structural elements
Due to the dominance of concrete in the massive build-
ings, there are small distinctions in the total energy and air
891
pollution indices between the cast concrete and unit masonry
examples. By contrast, the lightweight buildings are gener-
ally 30qo-50% lower in energy and air pollution indices than
the massive buildings, and there is far more variability
between examples. This variation is due to the wider range
of materials represented in lightweight buildings and their
attendant differences in energy and air pollution emissions.
For example, the energy of a laminated wood beam system
is less than one quarter of the energy of an equivalent steel
system, though the hydrocarbon emissions from the
laminated wood assembly are eight times greater.
6.2. Vertical versus horizontal structural elements
In terms of total energy, the vertical structural in all four
examples is a relatively small proportion of the total, varying
between 14% and 26%. Consequently, the C 0 2 emissions
follow a similar pattern due to fossil fuel use in production,
including that used in electrical generation. However, con-
siderable variations occur in the relationship between the
vertical and horizontal structures in terms of other air pollu-
tion indices:
The air emission index for the massive examples is more
evenly split between the vertical and horizontal structures
than is the energy proportions, with the vertical elements
contributing approximately 40%. In the lightweight
examples, however, in the absence of massive load-bearing
walls, the major air emissions emphasis is on the horizon-
tal structure. In the case of the timber building, the hori-
zontal structure accounts for approximately 80% of the air
pollution index due primarily to the use of laminated wood.
Current production techniques for these components are
reliant on the burning of wood waste, which generates
relatively large amounts of air pollutants.
The non-energy particulate emissions for the vertical
and horizontal structures of the massive buildings are in
reverse proportion to the energy and C 0 2 values. In the
low-mass examples, however, the proportions are similar.
The reason for this reversal is the high particulate emissions
of the concrete industries.
In terms of hydrocarbon emissions, the emphasis clearly
shifts from proportions that reasonably reflect the vertical
and horizontal energy breakdown for massive buildings to
dominance of the horizontal structure in the lightweight
buildings. Once again, this is due to the current production
techniques for painted steel and laminated wood products,
which emit hydrocarbons from paints and adhesives.
6.3. Dominant components
Within the overall structure, the roof joists clearly
dominate all the examples, accounting for 26%-31% of
energy, 28%-57% of C 0 2 , and between 20% and 56% of
the air emissions index. The second most significant com-
ponent is the roof deck, which contributes between 12% and
30% of the energy and C 0 2 , and from 12% to 32% of the
air emission index. The roofing membrane and insulation
follow as the next most significant components.
7. Conclusions
This paper has presented a detailed analysis of the energy
and air pollution associated with the production of four
alternate structural systems for a typical warehouse build-
ing. For warehouse buildings, massive structural systems are
inherently more energy intensive than the lightweight ones
 CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 19, 1992
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Depository Services Program on 11/17/14

3
3 t - m m t - m ~ m \ o o o t - ~ w t - m ~ t - 0 0 o \~ot - m m o m o - m \ o v t - m m t - m c l t - o w r - 4
I-\o\ozm
y ~ ~ m m \ o t - ~ w ~ - t - w ~ m m d c l wc l\ mo m c l t - t - m o m m - t - m m m m r t c l o ~ v
m\ot-dmr-4 t-clmm m - mc lv\ o m z z m m\omr-amor-clmm
z m - m a m
-sg m
cl I-
03 r-4\o\omm cl c l \ o O o
cl
-clt- m cl 'O= 8 v cl-
==
For personal use only.
 TABLE3. Environmental audits of four alternative structural systems
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Depository Services Program on 11/17/14

Mass Total energy Fossil fuels Electricity co2 Air emission index Non-energy particulate HC

Component kg/m2 M J / ~ ' vo MJ/~' vo M J / ~ ~vo g Vo vo vo g vo

(c) Steel system warehouse/m2 floor area
Concrete footings 3.0 1.1 3985 6.0 192 7.3
Steel footing reinforcement 3.1 1.2 994 1.5 36 1.4
Steel column anchors 0.7 0.3 147 0.2 7 0.2
Steel wall frame 11.2 4.2 3607 5.4 131 4.9
Steel panel wall cladding, 26 gauge 34.9 13.2 7191 10.8 318 12.0
Steel panel connectors 0.3 0.1 92 0.1 3 0.1
Steel columns, exterior 6.3 2.4 2024 3.0 74 2.8
Steel columns, interior, 177 x 177 mm 1.7 0.6 552 0.8 20 0.8
Vertical structure subtotal 61 23 18592 28 782 29
Roof frame, steel "I" 38.0 14.4 12274 18.4 446 16.8
Roof purlin, steel 28.3 10.7 9127 13.7 332 12.5
Roofing, galvanized enamelled steel 92.8 35.2 19143 28.8 848 32.0
Roofing fasteners 1.0 0.4 206 0.3 9 0.3
For personal use only.

Insulation, sprayed cellulose fibre 11.0 4.2 1638 2.5 58 2.2

Flashings, galvanized 0.1 0.0 25 0.0 1 0.0
Misc. bolts, braces, welds, etc. 31.5 12.0 5548 8.3 176 66
Horizontal structure subtotal 203 77 47960 72 1871 71
Assembly totals 264 100 66552 100 2653 100
(d) Timber frame warehouse/m2 floor area
Concrete footings 24 2.6 0.9 3527 6.9 170 4.7
Steel footing reinforcement 0.48 2.7 0.9 883 1.7 32 0.9
Steel column anchors 0.04 0.5 0.2 98 0.2 4 0.1
38 x 241 mm wood studs 400 mm O.C. 7.22 4.5 1.5 727 1.4 86 2.4
Wall sheathing, 12.5 mm plywood 3.38 6.5 2.2 1055 2.1 125 3.5
Steel panel wall cladding, 26 gauge 2.93 34.9 11.9 7191 14.1 318 8.8
Fasteners 0.05 0.3 0.1 92 0.2 3 0.1
Glulam columns, interior 1.11 1.5 0.5 235 0.5 28 0.8
Column plates, steel 0.09 0.5 0.2 166 0.3 6 0.2
Vertical structure subtotal 39 54 18 13974 27 773 21
Glulam beams 4.77 6.3 2.1 1009 2.0 119 3.3
Open web tube joists I (TJ 60-36) 14.75 119.4 40.8 20760 40.6 2037 56.5
Roof deck, 19 mm plywood 11.4 22.1 7.5 3559 7.0 212 5.9
Roof insulation, rigid fibreglass 6.8 69.4 23.7 8597 16.8 293 8.1
Roof insulation fasteners, galvanized 0.03 0.4 0.1 88 0.2 4 0.1
AsphalUgravel roofing 10.3 17.4 6.0 2352 4.6 137 3.8
Flashings, galvanized 0.06 0.7 0.2 147 0.3 7 0.2
Misc. bolts, nails, anchors, etc. 0.2 2.9 1.0 589 1.2 26 0.7
Horizontal structure subtotal 48 238 82 37101 73 2835 79
Assembly totals 88 292 100 51074 100 3608 100
 894 CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 19, 1992

Vertical structure Horizontal structure

I800 T
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Depository Services Program on 11/17/14

Concrete block Tilt-up wall Prefabricated steel Timber frame

FIG. 5. Comparison of embodied energy of four alternative structural systems.

120.0T vertical structure Horizontal structure

For personal use only.

Concrete block Tilt-up wall Prefabricated steel Timber frame

FIG. 6. Comparison of CO, release of four alternative structural systems.

A
Vertical structure Horizontal structure

-
Concrete block Tilt-up wall Prefabricated steel Timber frame
FIG. 7. Comparison of air emission index of four alternative structural systems.

by virtue of the mass of the material in the walls which
dominates the relatively lightweight horizontal structures
common to all. Moreover, their C 0 2 and other air pollu-
tion indices are also significantly higher. However, in the
total audit of the building, the long span members are the
dominant single component, accounting for between 74%
and 79% of the total energy required for the production of
materials, and contributing from 59% to 79% of the
aggregate air pollution from manufacturing industries. The
more massive examples incorporating concrete or concrete
masonry walls entailed 34%-49% more total energy con-
sumption in their production than the wood frame or steel
frame examples. The steel frame had the lowest embodied
energy by a small margin.
The corresponding differences in C 0 2 released were even
more significant, where the massive examples exceeded the
lightweight by 56% to 113070, with the wood frame being
the lowest by a substantial margin. Surprisingly, the
 COLE ET AL.
aggregate index of emissions of air pollutants favored the
steel frame by a 36% margin over the wood frame.
In the examples, the number of variables in the analysis
was intentionally reduced to identify the contribution of the
most significant structural elements. A more comprehensive
analysis including all building systems and components will
alter the significance and proportions of the structural
elements.
Though energy use in manufacturing has been the focus
of environmental evaluations of building materials and com-
ponents, it is clear that total energy is only one part of envi-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by Depository Services Program on 11/17/14
ronmental auditing. The environmental emissions from both
energy use by fuel type and non-energy-related process emis-
sions are, in many cases, more significant indicators of the
environmental cost of materials. Furthermore, in the total
lifecycle environmental analysis of buildings, consideration
of the recycled content and the recyclability of materials as
well as the less quantifiable costs of resource extraction will
eventually alter the relative merits of one system over
another. For example, the increasing recycled content of
steel and its inherent recyclability as well as a full account-
ing of the environmental costs of forest harvesting will sub-
stantially alter the perceived advantages of the wood sys-
tem shown in the results.
Acknowledgements
Funding for ongoing research is provided by an operat-
For personal use only.
ing grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
Baird, G., and Chan, S.A. 1983. The energy cost of houses and
light construction buildings. New Zealand Energy Research and
Development Committee (NZERDC contract no. 3175),
Auckland, New Zealand.
Bradman, G. 1989. Global warming. Building, 14th April 1989,
p. 83.
Cole, R.J., and Rousseau, D. 1990. The environmental impact of
commercial building design and construction. Proceedings of
6th Canadian Building Congress, Toronto, Ont., pp. 337-344.
Cole, R.J., and Rousseau, D. 1992. Environmental auditing for
building construction: energy and air pollution indices for build-
ing materials. Buildings and Environment, 27(1): 23-30.
895
CORRIM. 1976. Renewable resources for industrial materials. U.S.
NRC Report no. PB 257-357, Committee on Renewable
Resources for Industrial Materials, Division of Policy Research,
National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
Environment Canada. 1985. Canadian emissions inventory of com-
mon air contaminants. Report no. EPS 5-AP-3, Ottawa, Ont.
Environment Canada. 1990. Residual discharge inventory system
for 1985 data. Ottawa, Ont.
Kohler, N. 1987. Energy consumption and pollution of building
construction. Proceedings of 3rd International Congress on
Building Energy Management (ICBEM '87), Vol. 2, Lausanne,
Switzerland, pp. 233-240.
Kohler, N. 1991. Life cycle costs of buildings. Proceedings of
Forum on Buildings and Environment, The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 19-36.
Kohler, N., and Lutzkendorf, Th. 1990. Energie- und oekobilanzen
von niedrigenergiegebauden. Statusseminar Energieforschung im
Hochbau. EMPA-KWH, Zurich, Switzerland.
Lorch, R. 1990. Towards green buildings. Royal Institute of British
Architect's Journal, February, pp. 58-59.
Marland, G., and Rotty, R.M. 1983. Carbon dioxide emissions
from fossil fuels. Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Report
no. DOE/NBB-0036 TR-003, U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, D.C.
Russell, P., Moffatt, S., and Cooper, K. 1990. Sustainable housing:
criteria, design tools and materials. Proceedings of 6th Canadian
Building Congress, Toronto, Ont., pp. 351-356.
Salokangas, R., Perala, A.L., and Kontuniemi, P . 1990. Energi-
innehallet I husbyggande (Energy contents of house building -
Finland). Nordic Conference on Total Energy in Buildings and
Energy Related Environmental Effects, Copenhagen, Denmark.
(article in Swedish).
Statistics Canada. 1986. Human activity and the environment.
Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Statistics Canada. 1991. Construction in Canada. Publication
no. 64-201, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Stein, R.G., Serber, D., and Hannon, B. 1976. Energy use for
building construction. Center for Advanced Computation, Uni-
versity of Illinois, and R.G. Stein and Associates. U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy, EDRA Report.
Taylor, S.I. 1981. Structural systems comparison without prelim-
inary design. Proceedings of ACSA Regional Fall Conference,
San Luis Obispo, Calif.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Compilation of air emission factors for the
1985 NAPAP. National Technical Information Services,
Washington, D.C.