Research Article

Page 1 of 8

The potential of South African timber products to

AUTHORS:
Philip L. Crafford1
reduce the environmental impact of buildings
Melanie Blumentritt1
C. Brand Wessels1 South Africa was the first country in Africa to implement a locally developed green building rating tool
and has a growing number of rated green building projects. The method of life-cycle assessment can
AFFILIATION: help to compare and assess the environmental performance of building products. At present, more than
1
Department of Forest and 70% of all sawn timber in South Africa is used in buildings, mainly in roof structures. Light gauge steel
Wood Science, Stellenbosch
trusses have recently also been gaining market share. However, to date, no studies have been conducted
University, Stellenbosch,
South Africa that quantify and compare the environmental impacts of the different roof truss systems in South Africa.
We thus compared several roof truss systems (South African pine, Biligom and light gauge steel) found
CORRESPONDENCE TO: in low- and medium-income house designs in South Africa using a simplified life-cycle assessment
Philip Crafford approach. Our results show that the two timber systems had overall the lowest environmental impact.
Although the difference between the timber systems was small, light gauge steel had a 40% higher
EMAIL:
normalised impact over all assessed environmental impact categories. The benefit of biogenic carbon
[email protected]
dioxide present in timber proved to play a significant positive role in the global warming potential impact
DATES: and could even be further reduced if wood were used to generate energy at its end-of-life. This study
Received: 16 Nov. 2016 demonstrates the potential advantage of using local timber products to reduce the environmental impact
Revised: 25 Apr. 2017 of the truss and building industry in South Africa.
Accepted: 17 May 2017
Significance:
• Timber truss systems showed overall lower environmental impact than light gauge steel trusses, with
KEYWORDS:
life-cycle assessment; pine;
implications for green building.
steel; novel truss materials;
green building
Introduction
HOW TO CITE: Buildings are major emitters of carbon dioxide and contribute significantly to global climate change.1,2 A growing
Crafford PL, Blumentritt M, global awareness of the environmental footprint of buildings and the necessity to lower greenhouse gas emissions
Wessels CB. The potential of has led to the implementation of green building practices and the introduction of green building rating tools that
South African timber products have been used to measure the environmental impact and sustainability of buildings since the 1990s.3 Numerous
to reduce the environmental studies have shown that substituting steel, concrete and brick materials with renewable and sustainable wood
impact of buildings. S Afr J
products can significantly lower the environmental impact of a building over its lifetime.4-9
Sci. 2017;113(9/10), Art.
#2016-0354, 8 pages. Residential roof truss construction in South Africa is the single biggest user of locally produced structural timber.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/ According to Crickmay and Associates10, more than 70% of all structural timber is used in the local building market.
sajs.2017/20160354 Structural timber in South Africa is mostly South African pine (various Pinus species). In addition eucalyptus
(mostly Eucalyptus grandis) timber is also used in structural applications, such as laminated beams and Biligom
ARTICLE INCLUDES: – a new, moist, glued, finger-jointed structural timber product for truss systems.11 Traditionally, structural steel is
× Supplementary material known for its ability to cover large spans and use in high stress applications such as reinforced concrete. Recently,
× Data set light gauge steel (LGS) construction as well as LGS roof truss systems have gained a noticeable market share and
offer another option as roof truss material. With steel prices currently low, many building projects and smaller roof
FUNDING: spans with steel have become economically viable options in South Africa, and in many cases replaced wood as
Hans Merensky Foundation the preferred truss material.12,13
In a combined life-cycle assessment (LCA) and cost study performed by Worth et al.14, in which softwood timber
trusses were compared with imported LGS in New Zealand, the authors found that LGS requires at least 6.65 times
more energy to manufacture than wood. In a study by Bolin and Smith15, it was found that in their manufacture, use
and disposal, CCA-treated wood guard rails require lower fossil fuel use, produce lower greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and have lower environmental impacts in the acidification, smog potential and eco-toxicity categories
compared with that of galvanised steel posts. Ximenes and Grant8 assessed the GHG benefits of the use of wood
products compared with those of steel-reinforced concrete in two popular house designs in Sydney, Australia. The
timber frame option for the roof resulted in a net GHG emission reduction ranging from 51% to 66% compared with
steel frames for the equivalent roofing material.
Governments, architects, developers and the general public are under an increasing obligation to make
environmentally responsible decisions when it comes to selecting building materials and methods.16 South Africa
was the first country in Africa to implement a locally developed green building rating tool and has a growing number
of rated green building projects.17 At the same time, however, marketing is used to promote materials and buildings
as green and environmentally sound without concrete evidence in support of these claims.
Nearly 70% of all sawn timber in South Africa is utilised in buildings, specifically in roof trusses. LGS trusses are also
gaining market share. However, to date no studies have been conducted quantifying the environmental impacts of
the different truss systems in South Africa. End-users of trusses, therefore, do not have the necessary information
© 2017. The Author(s). to make environmentally responsible choices when selecting a truss system. Additionally, manufacturers of
Published under a Creative both timber and LGS trusses have little information to guide them in reducing the environmental impacts of their
Commons Attribution Licence. processes and products.

South African Journal of Science

http://www.sajs.co.za 1 Volume 113 | Number 9/10
September/October 2017
Research Article A comparative life-cycle assessment of South African trusses
Page 2 of 8

In this study, we investigated and compared the potential environmental energy, an impact on the energy usage required for space heating and
impact of different roof truss systems typically found in low- and ventilation and further investigation is necessary to address this issue
medium-income house designs in South Africa using a simplified LCA properly. The assessment of the roof configurations is limited to the
approach. Environmental impacts were compared over 11 different environmental factors associated with each type of roof truss system,
impact categories. We present the potential environmental impact of the excluding the cover material (i.e. concrete tiles) and the supporting
modelled products and discuss adjustments and assumptions made building structure. Costing was also not included in the analyses.
with regard to the availability of South Africa specific life-cycle inventory
(LCI) data and validity of obtained results. Methodology
Life-cycle assessment is a methodical framework for estimating and A detailed description of the LCA methodology and framework is
assessing the potential environmental impacts of a product system or available in the ISO 14040 Environmental Management series.20,21 Many
process over its entire life cycle, including raw material extraction, manu­ of the recommendations set out in these documents are above and
facturing, use, and end-of-life disposal and/or recycling.18 Thus, LCA is beyond the scope of the current study; however, the sections of these
often considered a ‘cradle-to-grave’ approach to evaluate environmental guidelines relevant to this study were followed.
impacts.19 The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) adopted The functional unit, as defined in ISO 14041, was chosen for this study as
an environmental management standard in the 1990s as part of its the quantity of materials required to construct the roof truss system of a
14000 standards series, with the 14040 series focusing on establishing house with a predefined footprint (i.e. 42 m2 or 168 m2). Both theoretical
methodologies for LCA.20,21 The ISO standards define a four-stage house designs have cement block walls. All structural components
interactive framework for conducting LCA analysis. The first stage is the required that make up the roof structure were considered (namely truss
definition of the goal and scope of the study including the establishment of material, bracing material, battens, purlins, nails and screws). The cover
the functional unit, system boundaries and quality criteria for LCI data. Life- material (i.e. concrete tiles) and insulation material were not included, but
cycle inventory, the second stage, deals with the collection and synthesis of were considered for the design (e.g. in terms of load-bearing capacity of
information of system inputs and outputs of material and energy flows and the roof structure). The roofs were designed with a 17.5° pitch and for
associated environmental impacts in all stages of the life cycle. During the a 50-year service life in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. The
life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA), the third stage, these environmental roof structures were calculated and designed by MiTek South Africa (Pty)
impacts are assigned to different environmental impact categories and by Ltd engineers (Cape Town) according to national timber construction
means of characterisation factors, the contribution of each constituent standards. MiTek design software provided a detailed material and
is calculated for different environmental impact categories (e.g. global cutting list for all structural components per design, either per mass or
warming potential, human toxicity, acidification, resource depletion, land per volume (Table 2). Waste produced from cutting standard lengths to
use). The final stage is the interpretation of the results from both LCI size was not accounted for. We assumed that no maintenance work or
and LCIA.20,21 replacements would be necessary over the design lifespan.
Goal and scope Biligom structural timber is 25–35% stronger than South African pine
structural grade S5 in terms of flexural properties, i.e. bending strength
Objective and stiffness11; in this theoretical comparison, because of current design
The goal of this study was to assess the potential environmental constraints and data availability, Biligom was assumed to be equal in
impact associated with the manufacture, use and disposal of timber volume/dimensions to South African pine (S5).
and light gauge steel roof truss systems commonly found and used in
South Africa. We compared three different truss materials – South African
Table 2: Roof truss systems with the mass and volume per material
pine (S5), LGS and Biligom – in two house designs (Table 1). Biligom
category for each alternative
is a new sawn timber product made from green finger-jointed E. grandis
wood. A 42-m2 Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP)
SA pine (S5) Biligom Light gauge steel
house and a 168-m2 single-story family house were chosen to represent Alternative
commonly found house sizes in the South African lower- and middle- m3 kg m3 kg kg
income market. Concrete tiles were selected as the roof cover material.
1 1.33 598.5 22.5
Table 1: Experimental design summary 2 1.33 798.0 23.5

Number 3 167.8
Cover
Alternative Truss material of House footprint
material 4 6.05 2722.5 180.6
trusses
5 6.05 3630.0 186.6
1 SA pine S5 10 Concrete tiles 42 m2 (6x7 m)
6 1094.0
2 Biligom 10 Concrete tiles 42 m2 (6x7 m)

3 Light gauge steel 7 Concrete tiles 42 m2 (6x7 m) Wood density is taken as air dry density for South African pine (450 kg/m3) and
partially wet density for Biligom (600 kg/m3).
4 SA pine S5 16 Concrete tiles 168 m2 (14x12 m) Both high strength (ISQ 550-3T) and low strength (ISQ 300) components are used in
MiTek truss systems. The steel is similar in production and treatment across the entire
5 Biligom 16 Concrete tiles 168 m (14x12 m)
2
manufacturing process. Here it is assumed that the same type of steel is used for all
components. All light gauge steel material is galvanised at 200 g/m2.
6 Light gauge steel 12 Concrete tiles 168 m2 (14x12 m)
End-plates are used as part of the Biligom product at 0.96 kg/m3 Biligom and both
timber systems make use of nail plates as truss component connectors.

Limitations
A significant portion of the overall life-cycle energy requirements of Life-cycle inventory
buildings is from occupational energy use. However, owing to time and In this study, openLCA 1.4.2 modelling software was used to determine
data constraints, occupational energy consumption over the design life the LCI. The materials used in the LCIs were assumed to be sourced and
of the roof and associated building was not considered in this study. In processed locally. As there is little to no LCI data available for South Africa,
reality, different roofing materials will have, next to their own embodied global data sets from the ecoinvent database 3.1 (Weidema et al.22)

South African Journal of Science

http://www.sajs.co.za 2 Volume 113 | Number 9/10
September/October 2017
Research Article A comparative life-cycle assessment of South African trusses
Page 3 of 8

were used. Adjustments were made to existing processes in the For the LGS, no recycling benefits were considered in the disposal phase
ecoinvent database when possible to better represent local conditions as locally manufactured galvanised LGS is mainly produced from virgin
(e.g. by using local electricity data available in ecoinvent or adjusting material and the majority of steel scrap is exported and reused outside
conversion factors). South Africa.26

Timber Life-cycle impact assessment

We assessed two types of timber: South African pine in grade S5 and All inputs and outputs considered in the cradle-to-grave analyses, and
Biligom. Plantation forestry for pine and eucalyptus is practised In intermediate steps, were analysed in openLCA 1.4.2 with the CML
South Africa. LCI data from the Australian life-cycle inventory database baseline impact assessment method version 4.4 as of January 2015
(AUSLCI) was used and integrated into the ecoinvent database to (GreenDelta27) including normalisation data for different countries and
model the softwood forestry process, as it reasonably represents years and using physical allocation. Additionally, impact category
local conditions. Sawmilling, drying and planing of the timber were GWP100 was calculated without including biogenic carbon dioxide
modelled using ecoinvent processes for softwood, but adjusted to use sequestration and emissions, thus assuming carbon neutrality of
South African specific conversion factors and electricity. biogenic carbon dioxide.

Biligom is a recent development of finger-jointed moist glued eucalyptus Results and discussion
timber and original LCI data were gathered from BILIGOM® International The potential environmental impact of the three roof truss assemblies
(Pty) Ltd. The AUSLCI process for hardwood (eucalyptus) forestry was assessed and compared. Both cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave
was used to model the forestry process. Both product systems were results are presented below. Table 3 shows the cradle-to-gate results
modelled in openLCA using the ecoinvent database for background data. of the 42-m2 and 168-m2 houses. Over all categories, Biligom has the
lowest impact in most categories, closely followed by pine, and LGS has
Depending on the region in South Africa, both pine and eucalyptus
the highest impact. The difference between the two timber alternatives
timber used in load-bearing applications need to be preservative
is small compared to the differences between them and LGS. The order
treated to comply with national building codes. Biligom uses TanalithE
of impact in the individual categories is the same for the larger truss
as preservative and copper chromated arsenate (CCA) was chosen
assemblies. The impact in the individual categories is on average 4.5
for pine, as it is widely used in South Africa. Original LCI data on the
times higher for the two timber alternatives and 6.5 times higher for
chemical composition of both preservatives used locally were provided LGS between the 42-m2 and 168-m2 house sizes. These differences are
by Arch Wood Protection (SA) Pty Ltd and modelled in openLCA using explained and directly correlated to the material volume ratio, required
the ecoinvent database for background data on chemicals, preservative per material alternative as displayed in Table 2. It is interesting to note
production and pressure treatment. that although the timber alternatives use more trusses per house,
the LGS system mass ratio is higher between the two house design
Light-gauge steel footprints (Table 1).
Light-gauge steel is made from galvanised sheet material, on continuous
Only the global warming potential (GWP) has negative values indicating
zinc coating lines from either cold-rolled (thickness range of 0.27 mm to
a positive impact at the gate. More specifically, the results indicate the
< 2.0 mm) or hot-rolled (thickness of 2.01–3.0 mm) steel in coil form.
amount of carbon dioxide equivalents sequestrated in the material at this
It is produced to the requirements of a range of national and international stage minus carbon dioxide emissions from processing and excluding
standards as well as Mittal Steel South Africa’s ISQ standards.23 emissions from end-of-life. Table 4 shows the same results as in Table 3
Continuous zinc-coated cold-rolled sheet metal, also known as LGS, from cradle-to-grave. As expected, there is mostly a small increase
and the machining thereof was modelled based on rest-of-world steel in all categories and the timber alternatives are better than LGS. The
data, available in the ecoinvent database 3.1, including processes for most significant change can be seen in the GWP100, which is a result
steel production, sheet rolling, metal working and zinc coating. The rest- of the inclusion of emissions from wood incineration at the end-of-life
of-world data are assumed to closer reflect local process conditions of the timber systems. A significant increase in fossil fuel depletion
than are European or global data sets, especially in terms of the primary and eutrophication for the wood alternatives and aquatic ecotoxicity
energy mix as it was not feasible to adjust all background processes for LGS must also be attributed to the end-of-life treatment as well as
included in LGS production to use South African electricity data. transportation processes.

Transportation Pine showed significantly higher human toxicity impact values compared
to the others because of the CCA treatment process. According to the
Transportation of materials to the processing facilities and from there LCA process contribution analysis, chromium oxide production is
to the building site in the Western Cape was included. We assumed responsible for more than 90% of the human toxicity impact of pine
that the LGS was sourced from the Gauteng Province, Biligom from the from cradle-to-gate. The higher photochemical oxidation impact value
plant in Tzaneen, Limpopo and pine timber was standard averaged and for Biligom is again because of the carbon monoxide emissions created
originated in the Southern Cape and Limpopo Provinces. At the end- by the forest management process. The forest management LCI data
of-life, it was assumed that all materials were transported over 50 km used in the Biligom LCA (the best available data) are from an Australian-
to their respective final destination (e.g. for incineration, landfilling based hardwood management process which used natural gas as part
or recycling). of their energy mix, which was responsible for 88% of the photochemical
oxidation impact.
End-of-life
Over the last decade, carbon sequestration, carbon footprints and carbon
Formal recycling and burning of wood waste for energy was not emissions have become globally familiar terms. GWP is often one of the
considered as it is currently not common practice in South Africa. key impact factors when assessing the environmental performance of
According to the South African Wood Preservers Association’s treated building materials. Timber is unique in the sense that trees sequestrate
timber guidelines, treated timber should be disposed of at a registered carbon dioxide during growth. By using wood in long-lived products,
landfill site.24 However, in South Africa, significant amounts of waste the re-emission can be delayed; additionally, by using wood products
wood are used in peri-urban and rural areas as fuel for cooking and and by-products for energy generation, emission associated with fossil
heating. A study performed by Niyobuhungira25 showed that more than fuels can be avoided. Furthermore, wood products generally require less
50% of the residential fuel wood used in peri-urban areas in the Western energy for manufacturing than equivalent alternatives.7,28-30 There is an
Cape was CCA treated. In this study we chose disposal of timber by ongoing debate in the research community on how to treat biogenetic
incineration, modelled with processes from the ecoinvent database as carbon emissions.31,32 While the assumption of carbon neutrality is true
the most likely final fate scenario. given a long time perspective, climate neutrality is a different matter.

South African Journal of Science

http://www.sajs.co.za 3 Volume 113 | Number 9/10
September/October 2017
Research Article A comparative life-cycle assessment of South African trusses
Page 4 of 8

In order to better understand the climate change impact of using 42-m2 to the 168-m2 house, compared to the timber alternatives. Note
wood compared to LGS in this study, Figures 1 to 3 present a more that because only two house footprints were analysed, the gradients in
differentiated view of the GWP and associated carbon dioxide streams. this graph are not equitable, but rather show a trend.
Figure 1 shows the cradle-to-grave GWP incline for the three materials The rest of the analyses will focus on the 42-m2 house roof designs.
and the two house sizes. The graph clearly indicates that the two timber
alternatives follow a similar near-flat GWP impact trend, whereas the Global warming potential is expressed in kilograms carbon dioxide
LGS system shows a sharp increase between the small and bigger equivalents (kg CO2 eq.) and represents the impact of a number of gases
house footprints. Once again, this increase can be explained by the (e.g. carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, HFC) standardised
higher material mass ratio required to scale up the LGS systems from the with their lifespan in the atmosphere to a unit of carbon dioxide.

Table 3: Cradle-to-gate roof truss alternative impact assessment summary for the two roof designs

42-m2 house 168-m2 house

Light Light
Impact category Pine Biligom gauge Pine Biligom gauge Reference unit
(1) (2) steel (4) (5) steel
(3) (6)

Acidification potential 3.43 3.13 9.28 19.93 18.63 60.53 kg SO2 eq.

GWP100 -919 -1224 988 -3721 -5100 6445 kg CO2 eq.

Depletion of abiotic resources – elements, ultimate

0.04 0.02 0.11 0.22 0.14 0.74 kg antimony eq.
reserves

Depletion of abiotic resources – fossil fuels 3301 3229 8918 19175 18923 58145 MJ

Eutrophication 1.20 1.14 3.50 7.10 6.85 22.82 kg PO4--- eq.

Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity 268 233 1035 1706 1552 6751 kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene eq.

Human toxicity 8193 813 2640 38503 4956 17218 kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene eq.

Marine aquatic ecotoxicity 7.02E+05 5.87E+05 2.28E+06 4.26E+06 3.75E+06 1.49E+07 kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene eq.

Ozone layer depletion 3.61E-05 3.21E-05 5.84E-05 1.90E-04 1.70E-04 3.80E-04 kg CFC-11 eq.

Photochemical oxidation 0.26 0.95 0.43 1.37 4.53 2.77 kg ethylene eq.

Terrestrial ecotoxicity 18.68 10.97 69.26 117 82.77 451 kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene eq.

Table 4: Cradle-to-grave roof truss alternative impact assessment summary for the two roof designs

42-m2 house 168-m2 house

Light Light
Impact category Pine Biligom gauge Pine Biligom gauge Reference unit
(1) (2) steel (4) (5) steel
(3) (6)

Acidification potential 4.21 4.46 9.52 23.60 24.81 62.07 kg SO2 eq.

GWP100 85 164 1038 873 1242 6769 kg CO2 eq.

Depletion of abiotic resources – elements, ultimate

0.04 0.02 0.11 0.23 0.14 0.74 kg antimony eq.
reserves

Depletion of abiotic resources – fossil fuels 5237 6513 9556 28281 34165 62308 MJ

Eutrophication 1.59 1.72 3.97 9.08 9.72 25.85 kg PO4--- eq.

Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity 737 744 4344 5379 5447 28328 kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene eq.

Human toxicity 8284 967 2790 38983 5726 18191 kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene eq.

Marine aquatic ecotoxicity 8.88E+05 8.27E+05 3.32E+06 5.59E+06 5.34E+06 2.17E+07 kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene eq.

Ozone layer depletion 6.05E-05 7.25E-05 7.33E-05 3.10E-04 3.60E-04 4.80E-04 kg CFC-11 eq.

Photochemical oxidation 0.29 1.00 0.44 1.51 4.76 2.85 kg ethylene eq.

Terrestrial ecotoxicity 19.28 12.44 69.62 120 89.62 453 kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene eq.

South African Journal of Science

http://www.sajs.co.za 4 Volume 113 | Number 9/10
September/October 2017
Research Article A comparative life-cycle assessment of South African trusses
Page 5 of 8

Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are produced from various as seen in Figure 2, both pine and Biligom still result in a small positive
sources, such as fossil fuel use, waste material decomposition and carbon dioxide footprint.
organic material burning. The carbon dioxide flows over the life cycle
Therefore, under a general simplified assumption of carbon neutrality of
of South African pine and Biligom are displayed in Figure 2. Three
biomass, a closer look at the GWP (excluding biogenic carbon monoxide,
major carbon dioxide flows were captured in both GWP data reports:
carbon dioxide and methane flows) can help in the understanding of
sequestrated carbon dioxide from the air and biogenic and fossil-
the global warming impact of the truss alternatives (Figure 3). This
derived carbon dioxide emissions. According to the US Environmental
time not considering carbon dioxide, the net GWP impact of the LGS
Protection Agency:
truss system is only about double the two wood alternatives. Both
Biogenic CO2 emissions are defined as CO2 wood alternatives have a large contribution attributed to transportation-
emissions related to the natural carbon cycle, as associated emission from the factory to the building site. This finding
well as those resulting from the production, harvest, highlights the importance of the transportation method and resource
combustion, digestion, fermentation, decomposition, location. Although alternative transportation methods – i.e. shipping and
and processing of biologically based materials.33 rail – might be more environmentally friendly, it was not part of the scope
of this study. The final stage (i.e. site to grave) includes incineration of
The sequestrated carbon dioxide in the air is a negative value because
all three truss systems and shows a non-significant overall non-biogenic
of the carbon that is stored in the tree through photosynthesis during
impact contribution compared to the cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-
growth. The biogenic carbon dioxide emissions in Figure 2 are 99%
site impact.
attributed to the incineration process whereas the fossil-derived carbon
dioxide emissions are mainly attributed to manufacturing and transport Figure 4 displays the fossil fuel depletion per life-cycle stage. A similar
processes. The difference in the magnitude of the carbon dioxide flows trend to the contribution profile for the non-biogenic GWP (Figure 3)
between the two timber systems is interesting to note. The lower biogenic can be seen, with a large contribution from transportation to the wood
carbon dioxide levels for pine can be explained by the lower material alternatives, especially for Biligom.
density. The slightly lower fossil carbon dioxide level for pine is mostly
While GWP and fossil fuel depletion are important and relatively easy to
as a result of the shorter transportation distance to the building site
understand impact factors, to assess the largely fossil fuel based climate
and also a lower density (smaller mass to transport). Fossil fuel impact
change impact of building products, other environmental indicators need
breakdown per alternative from the manufacturing stage, transport and
to be considered for a holistic evaluation of the potential environmental
disposal can be seen in Figure 4 to accentuate the transportation impact.
impact of building materials beyond GWP. In the following section,
In theory, adding sequestrated carbon dioxide from the air and the biogenic normalisation was used to evaluate the overall environmental impact
carbon dioxide emission should be close to a net result of zero. By between truss systems based on the 11 baseline impact categories.
analysing the flows for both materials visually, it is evident that these two Normalisation is a simple technique to equate different categories and
carbon dioxide flows do not exactly match up, but show a slight negative magnitudes by adjusting values measured on different scales to a
carbon dioxide net result. The most likely explanation for this negative notionally common scale. In Table 5, normalised indices of each cradle-
net result is a difference in wood volume in the forestry background to-grave impact category for all three truss systems are displayed.
data, compared to the wood used in the trusses and the wood used In each case, the LGS impact was set as one and the remaining two
in the modelled, Swiss-based, incineration process. Furthermore, the in relation to one. Finally, the combined or pooled normalised impact
incineration process does not emit all the carbon contained in the wood was computed by repeating the process using the total normalised
as pure carbon dioxide. Although timber sequesters carbon dioxide in values per truss system. Equal weighting was used to compute the
the growing phase, by adding the three types of carbon dioxide flows compiled impact.

8000

7000

6000

5000 Pine
GWP100 (kg CO2 eq.)

Biligom
4000
Steel

3000

2000

1000

0
0 50 100 150 200
House footprint (m2)

Figure 1: Global warming potential (GWP) gradient for South African pine, Biligom and light gauge steel for 42-m2 and 168-m2 houses.

South African Journal of Science

http://www.sajs.co.za 5 Volume 113 | Number 9/10
September/October 2017
Research Article A comparative life-cycle assessment of South African trusses
Page 6 of 8

2500
2000
1500
1000
500 Pine
kg CO2

0 Biligom
Sequest Biogenic Fossil
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500

Figure 2: Carbon dioxide flow of South African pine and Biligom for the 42-m2 roof design.

1200

1000
GWP100 (kg CO2 eq.)

800 Site to grave

Gate to site
600
Cradle to gate

400

200

0
Pine Biligom Steel

Figure 3: Global warming potential (GWP), excluding biogenic carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and methane impact per life-cycle stage for the 42-m2 roof
design.

12000.00

10000.00

8000.00
Fossil fuel (MJ)

Site to grave

6000.00 Gate to site

Cradle to gate

4000.00

2000.00

0.00
Pine Biligom Steel

Figure 4: Depletion of abiotic resources/ fossil fuel (MJ) per life-cycle stage for the 42-m2 roof design.

South African Journal of Science

http://www.sajs.co.za 6 Volume 113 | Number 9/10
September/October 2017
Research Article A comparative life-cycle assessment of South African trusses
Page 7 of 8

This method indicates that the overall environmental performance End-of-life scenario discussion
of the two timber systems is about 40% better than that of the LGS Only one scenario was considered in this study: 100% material waste
system. It also shows that one should be cautious of considering only incineration. The assumption satisfies the reality of local wood waste
one impact category to evaluate materials. For example, considering treatment and scrap steel disposal. However, a study done by Blengini35
only climate change or human toxicity potential will portray a skewed showed that building material recycling has the potential to save between
picture. However, considering all impact data and results presented in 18% and 35% on GWP over the building’s life cycle.
this study, both timber truss systems outperform LGS but indicate a
similar or higher impact in the human toxicity, ozone layer depletion and Additional climate benefits of wood use can also be realised at the end of
photochemical oxidation categories. its life depending on biogenic carbon and GWP accounting approaches
and by granting substitution benefits. In general, wood use can help
reduce GHG effects by four main routes, which are closely interlinked:
Table 5: Combined cradle-to-grave normalised impact per alternative (1) carbon can be stored in forests and (2) wood products, (3) wood
material products can substitute for other products, thus using less fossil fuel
during manufacturing, avoiding process emissions and fuel emissions
Normalised impact for 42-m² roofs Normalised indices
through biofuel substitution, and (4) carbon dynamics in landfills.7
Impact category Pine Biligom Steel Previous studies on the topic of wood substitution have found that the
greatest potential for positively effecting climate change mitigation lies
Acidification potential – average Europe 0.44 0.47 1 in increasing the amount of carbon stored in wood products and by
substituting fossil fuels using wood energy or products that use a large
Climate change – GWP100 0.08 0.16 1 amount of fossil fuel in their production.28-30
Depletion of abiotic resources – elements 0.34 0.17 1 In this study, we chose a conservative approach to account for climate
change benefits of wood use and substitution without accounting for
Depletion of fossil fuels 0.55 0.68 1
carbon pools, carbon pool changes and substitution benefits to facilitate
Eutrophication – generic 0.40 0.43 1 a relatively simple and easy direct comparison of the different roof truss
systems and materials.
Freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity – FAETP inf 0.17 0.17 1
Conclusion
Human toxicity – HTP inf 2.97 0.35 1
In both cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-grave analyses, the two timber
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity – MAETP inf 0.27 0.25 1 alternatives – Biligom and South African pine truss systems – showed
significantly lower environmental impact than LGS. For the smaller truss
Ozone layer depletion – ODP steady state 0.82 0.99 1 system, LGS had about twice the GWP impact of the timber systems and
the normalised impact over all environmental indicators was about 40%
Photochemical oxidation – high Nox 0.66 2.29 1
higher. The benefit of biogenic carbon dioxide and low embodied energy
Terrestrial ecotoxicity – TETP inf 0.28 0.18 1 present in timber proved to play a significant role in the GWP impact and
could be further reduced if wood were used at its end-of-life to generate
Total 6.98 6.14 11 energy and substitute for fossil fuel use.
Average normalised impact 0.63 0.56 1 Overall, we have shown the potential advantage of using local timber
products to reduce the environmental impact of the truss and building
industry in South Africa. More local LCI data and research are required
Sensitivity analysis
in order to promote and simplify direct system comparison in the local
Process contribution, end-of-life modelling and data uncertainty were building industry and to better account for localised environmental
identified as important independent variables that could impact the emissions e.g. end-of-life fate of preservative treated timber. While better
dependent variables and thus overall LCIA under the system assumptions. data would produce more reliable and robust absolute data, no changes
to the general trends of this study are likely.
Data uncertainty and availability
Data uncertainty with a likely significant impact on results is the lack of Acknowledgements
LCI data for the wood preservation chemicals. A local timber treatment We thank the following persons for their insightful contributions and
expert provided chemical composition and quantities of treatment valuable data: Conrad van Zyl from Mitek South Africa, Spencer Drake,
required per cubic metre of timber, but impacts that could possibly Biligom International, Doug Sayce, Lonza and Herman Aucamp. We
occur when the treated product is disposed of were not accounted for. gratefully acknowledge the Hans Merensky Foundation for providing
Similarly, no detailed LCI data were available for galvanised LGS. Global study sponsorships which enabled the research to be undertaken.
steel manufacturing processes in ecoinvent, including steel production,
sheet rolling, zinc coating and metal working were combined and Authors’ contributions
adjusted to approximate a local LGS product model. Metal working was P.L.C. was responsible for the article design, technical analyses and
included to represent the machining and press factory processes which write-up; M.B. was responsible for the model analyses and write-up;
produce profiled LGS truss components. This process contributes 36% C.B.W. supervised the research and revised the manuscript.
to the LGS GWP and might be a slight overestimate as a result of the
difference in general metal machining and LGS. References
Although the Australian forestry models used reasonably represent local 1. Wang L, Toppinen A, Juslin H. Use of wood in green building: A study of
conditions, in order to better assess the impact of forestry on local land expert perspectives from the UK. J Clean Prod. 2014;65:350–361. http://doi.
and water use, local LCI data would be required. In general, global LCI org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.023
data are good enough for a general comparison, to assess trends and 2. US Energy Information Administration. How much energy is consumed in
identify weak points in a system, but the calculated numbers should residential and commercial buildings in the United States? [homepage on the
not be taken as absolute values. The work by Nebel et al.34, on adapting Internet]. No date [updated 2016 Apr 06; cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from:
European data for use in New Zealand, highlights the difficulty of using http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=86&t=1
data from one country or region for another country that does not share 3. Ding GKC. Sustainable construction – The role of environmental assessment
common manufacturing resources. The latter can be especially difficult tools. J Environ Manage. 2008;86(3):451–464. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
to assess in terms of appropriateness for an LCA practitioner. jenvman.2006.12.025

South African Journal of Science

http://www.sajs.co.za 7 Volume 113 | Number 9/10
September/October 2017
Research Article A comparative life-cycle assessment of South African trusses
Page 8 of 8

4. Petersen AK, Solberg B. Environmental and economic impacts of substitution 21. ISO Environmental management: Life cycle assessment: Requirements and
between wood products and alternative materials: A review of micro-level guidelines. ISO14044:2006.
analyses from Norway and Sweden. Forest Policy Econ. 2005;7(3):249–259.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00063-7 22. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R, Mutel C, Nemecek T, Reinhard J, et
al. Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent
5. Werner F, Richter K. Wooden building products in comparative LCA: A database version 3 [document on the Internet]. c2013 [cited 2016 Aug
literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2007;12(7):470–479. http://doi. 16]. Available from: https://www.ecoinvent.org/files/dataqualityguideline_
org/10.1065/lca2007.04.317 ecoinvent_3_20130506.pdf
6. Upton B, Miner R, Spinney M, Heath LS. The greenhouse gas and energy 23. ArcelorMittal. ArcelorMittal South Africa [homepage on the Internet]. No date
impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the [cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from: http://southafrica.arcelormittal.com/
United States. Biomass Bioenerg. 2008;32(1):1–10. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2007.07.001 24. South African Wood Preservers Association. CCA treated timber [document
on the Internet]. No date [cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from: http://www.
7. Sathre R, O’Connor J. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors sawpa.co.za/documents/THE%20SAFETY%20OF%20CCA%20TREATED%20
of wood product substitution. Environ Sci Policy. 2010;13(2):104–114. TIMBER%20Revision%20final.pdf
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.005
25. Niyobuhungira RV. An investigation of CCA-treated wood in informal caterers’
8. Ximenes FA, Grant T. Quantifying the greenhouse benefits of the use of wood fuel stocks and related airborne arsenic in the Cape Town region [thesis].
products in two popular house designs in Sydney, Australia. Int J Life Cycle Cape Town: University of Cape Town; 2012.
Assess. 2012;18:891–908. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0533-5
26. South African Waste Information Centre. Scrap metal fact sheet [document
9. Oliver CD, Nassar NT, Lippke BR, McCarter JB. Carbon, fossil fuel,
on the Internet]. No date [cited 2016 May 16]. Available from: http://sawic.
and biodiversity mitigation with wood and forests. J Sustainable For.
environment.gov.za/documents/5329.pdf
2014;33(3):248–275. http://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2013.839386
27. openLCA. GreenDelta [homepage on the Internet]. No date [cited 2017 Apr
10. Crickmay and Associates. South African lumber index: September 2016.
25]. Available from: http://www.openlca.org/
Pietermaritzburg: Crickmay and Associates (Pty) Ltd; 2016.
28. Perez-Garcia J, Lippke B, Comnick J, Manriquez C. An assessement of carbon
11. Crafford PL, Wessels CB. The potential of young, green finger-jointed
pools, storage, and wood products market substitution using life-cycle
Eucalyptus grandis lumber for roof truss manufacturing. South Forests.
analysis results. Wood Fiber Sci. 2005;37(Corrim special issue):140–148.
2016;78(1):61–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.2989/20702620.2015.1108618
29. Gustavsson L, Pingoud K, Sathre R. Carbon dioxide balance of wood
12. Evans S. SA steel industry on the brink of collapse. Mail and Guardian [serial
on the Internet]. 2015 August 29 [cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from: http:// substitution: Comparing concrete- and wood-framed buildings. Mitig Adapt
mg.co.za/article/2015-08-27-sa-steel-industry-on-the-brink-of-collapse/ Strategies Glob Chang. 2006;11(3):667–691. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11027-006-7207-1
13. Spotlight on steel in South Africa. SA Roofing. 2015;70:14–15. Available
from: https://issuu.com/trademaxpublications/docs/sar_june_2015_ 30. Lippke B, Jonhson L, Wilson J, Puettmann M. Life-cycle environmental
dload?e=7285681/13191678 performance of renewable building materials in the context of residential
construction [document on the Internet]. c2011 [cited 2017 Apr 25].
14. Worth Z, Boyle C, McDowall WR. Combined life-cycle cost assessment of Available from: http://www.sefs.washington.edu/research.corrim/pubs/
roof construction. Proc Inst Civil Eng Eng Sustain. 2007;160(4):189–198. reports/2010/phase2/Ph2_Main_Report.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2007.160.4.189
31. Cherubini F, Peters GP, Berntsen T, Stromman AH, Hertwich E. CO2 emissions
15. Bolin CA, Smith ST. Life-cycle assessment of CCA-treated wood highway from biomass combustion for bioenergy: Atmospheric decay and contribution
guard rail posts in the US with comparisons to galvanised steel guard to global warming. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy. 2011;3(5):413–426. http://
rail posts. J Transp Technol. 2013;3:58–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01102.x
jtts.2013.31007
32. Helin T, Sokka L, Soimakallio S, Pingoud K, Pajula T. Approaches for inclusion
16. United Nations. Millennium development goals and beyond [homepage on the of forest carbon cycle in life-cycle assessment – a review. Glob Change Biol
Internet]. No date [updated 2015 Nov 10; cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from: Bioenergy. 2013;5:475–486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12016
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/
33. US Environmental Protection Agency. Framework for assessing biogenic CO2
17. Wilkinson B. South Africa – leading the green building charge in Africa emissions from stationary sources [document on the Internet]. c2014 [cited
[homepage on the Internet]. c2016 [cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from: 2017 Apr 25]. Available from: https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.
http://www.worldgbc.org/news-media/south-africa-leading-green-building-
nsf/0/3235DAC747C16FE985257DA90053F252/$File/Framework-for-
charge-africa
Assessing-Biogenic-CO2-Emissions+(Nov+2014).pdf
18. Curran MA. Life cycle assessment: Principles and practice [document on the
34. Nebel B, Alcorn A, Wittstock B. Life-cycle assessment: Adopting and adapting
Internet]. No date [updated 2006 May 01; cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from:
oversear LCA data and methodologies for building materials in New Zealand
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~chong/290N-W10/EPAonLCA2006.pdf
[document on the Internet]. c2011 [cited 2017 Apr 25]. Available from: http://
19. Ciambrone DF. Environmental life cycle analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; maxa.maf.govt.nz/forestry/publications/lca-materials.pdf
1997.
35. Blengini GA. Life-cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A
20. ISO. Environmental management: Life cycle assessment: Principles and case study in Turin, Italy. Build Environ. 2009;44:319–330. http://dx.doi.
framework. ISO14040:2006. org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.03.007

South African Journal of Science

http://www.sajs.co.za 8 Volume 113 | Number 9/10
September/October 2017