20
250 200 150 100 50
steni colour 7mm
Fiber-cement plate 8mm
Brick-facade 85mm
Concrete panel 40mm
Plaster 30mm
Steel frame 1,5mm
Aluminium frame 1,5mm Ecological comparison of different facade materials
Energy Content ((MJ) 10-1
/m2
During the development of facades much emphasis has been placed on reducing evironmental impact, both in terms of the resources and energy used during manufacture and the end product’s effect on the environment and natural cycles. Through several independent tests, it was able to document this as fact, as can be seen from the diagram above
)/m2) wall surface)
Acidification Potential (AP) ((g(SO2
/wall surface)
Photochem. Ozone Creation Pot. (POCP) (((mg(C2
H2 )/m2 )2,5)10-1 /wall surface)
Global Warming Potential (GWP) ((g(CO2
)/m2 )10-3 /wall surface)
Nutrification Potential (NP) ((g(phosphates)/m2
)10-1
Critical Air Volume (CAV) (1000m3
/wall surface) of substitutial air) 10-1 /wall surface)
Extract from Tampere University of Technology, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Institute of Construction Economics and Management; Ecological Comparison of Facade Renovation. The separate columns compare the actual ecological loading for each product group (low value reflects low environmental loading). The diagram does not rank the various environmental loads against each other, because of differing designations/weighting and environmental consequences.
Steni will be pleased to send you the complete report – available in Finnish and English
but one of the categories studied. Take the POCP results – 8mm glass fibre reinforced polyester composite panels returned
a score of 5mg CO2/m² of wall surface. Its closest rival was again, 8mm fibre cement board with a score of 17mg CO2/m². Thin film aluminium cassette (1.5mm thick) scored 5,800mg
CO2/m² and thin film steel cassette (1.5mm) 7,700mg CO2/m². Acidification Potential results also reinforced the sound envi-
ronmental performance of glass fibre systems, which scored 15g
CO2/m² of wall surface. Fibre cement board (8mm thick) was the next closest with a rating of 35g CO2/m². Other results included 1.5mm-thick thin film aluminium cassette – 136g
CO2/m²; 85mm thick brick facade – 197g CO2/m² and 130mm thick brick facade – 274g CO2/m² of wall surface. When Nutrification Potential was studied, glass fibre
reinforced polyester systems were virtually matched in perform- ance by 30mm of plastering [0.6g (phosphate)/m² of wall surface and 0.7g (phosphate)/m² of wall surface respectively]. Fibre cement board scored 1.3g (phosphate)/m² and 40mm concrete panel returned a reading of 2.5g (phosphate)/m². Brick facade (130mm thick) topped the NP scale with 10.5g (phosphate)/m², with thin film aluminium cassette of 1.5mm
thickness scoring 9.1g (phosphate)/m². Glass fibre reinforced polyester systems also performed well
in tests measuring the energy contents of facade materials, reg- istering the lowest score of 80MJ/m² of wall surface. The highest was 130mm-thick brick facade, with a reading of 750MJ/m². The study also demonstrated that framing materials have an
impact on environmental performance. In every category, wood stud was the most ecologically-sound fixing medium. For example in GWP tests, wood stud (30mm) scored 560g
CO2/m² of wall surface, compared with 30mm aluminium stud (8,800g CO2/m²) and 30mm steel stud (7,600g ( CO2/m²). Concluding the report, scientists looked at the ecological
impacts of a modernised wall structure during a period of 25 years from renovation. As would be expected, the better-insu- lated the property, the less ecological impact it caused. The report stated: “The most ecological alternative of
those studied proved to be a ventilated structure supported with impregnated long length wood, insulated with 100mm thick glass wool and covered with glass fibre reinforced polyester composite.”
respond online at
www.architectsdatafile.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44