<b>Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste contributes to over 50% of New Zealand’s overall waste. Materials such as timber, plasterboard, and concrete make up 81% of the C&D waste that goes into landfills each year. Alongside this, more than 235 heritage-listed buildings have been demolished in Christchurch since the 2011 earthquakes. This research portfolio aims to find a solution to decrease C&D waste produced by demolishing heritage buildings.</b>
With the recent announcement of The Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament’s demolition, this will be another building added to the list of lost heritage in Christchurch. This research portfolio aims to bridge the relationship between heritage and waste through the recycling and reuse of the demolished materials, exploring the idea that history and heritage are preserved through building material reuse.
This research portfolio mainly focuses on reducing construction and demolition waste in New Zealand, using the design of a new Catholic Cathedral as a vessel. This thesis will challenge how the construction and design industry deals with the demolition of heritage buildings and their contribution to New Zealand’s waste. It aims to explore the idea of building material reuse not only to reduce waste but also to retain the history and heritage of the demolished building within the materials.
Deconstruction, at the end of the useful life of a building, produces a considerable amount of materials which must be disposed of, or be recycled / reused. At present, in New Zealand, most timber construction and demolition (C&D) material, particularly treated timber, is simply waste and is placed in landfills. For both technical and economic reasons (and despite the increasing cost of landfills), this position is unlikely to change in the next 10 – 15 years unless legislation dictates otherwise. Careful deconstruction, as opposed to demolition, can provide some timber materials which can be immediately re-used (eg. doors and windows), or further processed into other components (eg. beams or walls) or recycled (‘cascaded’) into other timber or composite products (e.g. fibre-board). This reusing / recycling of materials is being driven slowly in NZ by legislation, the ‘greening’ of the construction industry and public pressure. However, the recovery of useful material can be expensive and uneconomic (as opposed to land-filling). In NZ, there are few facilities which are able to sort and separate timber materials from other waste, although the soon-to-be commissioned Burwood Resource Recovery Park in Christchurch will attempt to deal with significant quantities of demolition waste from the recent earthquakes. The success (or otherwise) of this operation should provide good information as to how future C&D waste will be managed in NZ. In NZ, there are only a few, small scale facilities which are able to burn waste wood for energy recovery (e.g. timber mills), and none are known to be able to handle large quantities of treated timber. Such facilities, with constantly improving technology, are being commissioned in Europe (often with Government subsidies) and this indicates that similar bio-energy (co)generation will be established in NZ in the future. However, at present, the NZ Government provides little assistance to the bio-energy industry and the emergence worldwide of shale-gas reserves is likely to push the economic viability of bio-energy further into the future. The behaviour of timber materials placed in landfills is complex and poorly understood. Degrading timber in landfills has the potential to generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which can escape to the atmosphere and cancel out the significant benefits of carbon sequestration during tree growth. Improving security of landfills and more effective and efficient collection and utilisation of methane from landfills in NZ will significantly reduce the potential for leakage of methane to the atmosphere, acting as an offset to the continuing use of underground fossil fuels. Life cycle assessment (LCA), an increasingly important methodology for quantifying the environmental impacts of building materials (particularly energy, and global warming potential (GWP)), will soon be incorporated into the NZ Green Building Council Greenstar rating tools. Such LCA studies must provide a level playing field for all building materials and consider the whole life cycle. Whilst the end-of-life treatment of timber by LCA may establish a present-day base scenario, any analysis must also present a realistic end-of-life scenario for the future deconstruction of any 6 new building, as any building built today will be deconstructed many years in the future, when very different technologies will be available to deal with construction waste. At present, LCA practitioners in NZ and Australia place much value on a single research document on the degradation of timber in landfills (Ximenes et al., 2008). This leads to an end-of-life base scenario for timber which many in the industry consider to be an overestimation of the potential negative effects of methane generation. In Europe, the base scenario for wood disposal is cascading timber products and then burning for energy recovery, which normally significantly reduces any negative effects of the end-of-life for timber. LCA studies in NZ should always provide a sensitivity analysis for the end-of-life of timber and strongly and confidently argue that alternative future scenarios are realistic disposal options for buildings deconstructed in the future. Data-sets for environmental impacts (such as GWP) of building materials in NZ are limited and based on few research studies. The compilation of comprehensive data-sets with country-specific information for all building materials is considered a priority, preferably accounting for end-of-life options. The NZ timber industry should continue to ‘champion’ the environmental credentials of timber, over and above those of the other major building materials (concrete and steel). End-of-life should not be considered the ‘Achilles heel’ of the timber story.
Designing a structure for higher- than-code seismic performance can result in significant economic and environmental benefits. This higher performance can be achieved using the principles of Performance-Based Design, in which engineers design structures to minimize the probabilistic lifecycle seismic impacts on a building. Although the concept of Performance-Based Design is not particularly new, the initial capital costs associated with designing structures for higher performance have historically hindered the widespread adoption of performance-based design practices. To overcome this roadblock, this research is focused on providing policy makers and stakeholders with evidence-based environmental incentives for designing structures in New Zealand for higher seismic performance. In the first phase of the research, the environmental impacts of demolitions in Christchurch following the Canterbury Earthquakes were quantified to demonstrate the environmental consequences of demolitions following seismic events. That is the focus here. A building data set consisting of 142 concrete buildings that were demolished following the earthquake was used to quantify the environmental impacts of the demolitions in terms of the embodied carbon and energy in the building materials. A reduced set of buildings was used to develop a material takeoff model to estimate material quantities in the entire building set, and a lifecycle assessment tool was used to calculate the embodied carbon and energy in the materials. The results revealed staggering impacts in terms of the embodied carbon and energy in the materials in the demolished buildings. Ongoing work is focused developing an environmental impact framework that incorporates all the complex factors (e.g. construction methodologies, repair methodologies (if applicable), demolition methodologies (if applicable), and waste management) that contribute to the environmental impacts of building repair and demolition following earthquakes.
The research presented in this thesis investigated the environmental impacts of structural design decisions across the life of buildings located in seismic regions. In particular, the impacts of expected earthquake damage were incorporated into a traditional life cycle assessment (LCA) using a probabilistic method, and links between sustainable and resilient design were established for a range of case-study buildings designed for different seismic performance objectives. These links were quantified using a metric herein referred to as the seismic carbon risk, which represents the expected environmental impacts and resource use indicators associated with earthquake damage during buildings’ life. The research was broken into three distinct parts: (1) a city-level evaluation of the environmental impacts of demolitions following the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence in New Zealand, (2) the development of a probabilistic framework to incorporate earthquake damage into LCA, and (3) using case-study buildings to establish links between sustainable and resilient design. The first phase of the research focused on the environmental impacts of demolitions in Christchurch, New Zealand following the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence. This large case study was used to investigate the environmental impact of the demolition of concrete buildings considering the embodied carbon and waste stream distribution. The embodied carbon was considered here as kilograms of CO2 equivalent that occurs on production, construction, and waste management stage. The results clearly demonstrated the significant environmental impacts that can result from moderate and large earthquakes in urban areas, and the importance of including environmental considerations when making post-earthquake demolition decisions. The next phase of the work introduced a framework for incorporating the impacts of expected earthquake damage based on a probabilistic approach into traditional LCA to allow for a comparison of seismic design decisions using a carbon lens. Here, in addition to initial construction impacts, the seismic carbon risk was quantified, including the impacts of seismic repair activities and total loss scenarios assuming reconstruction in case of non-reparability. A process-based LCA was performed to obtain the environmental consequence functions associated with structural and non-structural repair activities for multiple environmental indicators. In the final phase of the work, multiple case-study buildings were used to investigate the seismic consequences of different structural design decisions for buildings in seismic regions. Here, two case-study buildings were designed to multiple performance objectives, and the upfront carbon costs, and well as the seismic carbon risk across the building life were compared. The buildings were evaluated using the framework established in phase 2, and the results demonstrated that the seismic carbon risk can significantly be reduced with only minimal changes to the upfront carbon for buildings designed for a higher base shear or with seismic protective systems. This provided valuable insight into the links between resilient and sustainable design decisions. Finally, the results and observations from the work across the three phases of research described above were used to inform a discussion on important assumptions and topics that need to be considered when quantifying the environmental impacts of earthquake damage on buildings. These include: selection of a non-repairable threshold (e.g. a value beyond which a building would be demolished rather than repaired), the time value of carbon (e.g. when in the building life the carbon is released), the changing carbon intensity of structural materials over time, and the consideration of deterministic vs. probabilistic results. Each of these topics was explored in some detail to provide a clear pathway for future work in this area.
