Life cycle analysis of cross-insulated timber panels

Abstract

A sandwich wall-panel solution based on Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) has been recently developed aiming to rationalize the wood volume and combine it with a low-density core layer for improved thermal insulation and reduced weight. Such panel, named Cross-Insulated Timber (CIT), was previously optimized to fulfil structural and thermal requirements with a minimum production cost. The layout of the new panel is similar to the one of a five-layer CLT panel, but the inner layer is made of polyurethane rigid foam instead of timber. Besides its technical and economical benefit, it is also of interest to assess its environmental impact. This paper presents a study about the environmental impact assessment through Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) of this new type of wood-based sandwich wall panel. A cradle-to-gate LCA with consideration of different end-of-life scenarios is performed in order to identify the processes that contribute the most to the environmental impact of the CIT panel solution proposed during its life cycle, namely during manufacturing. The LCA includes also the comparative assessment of: (i) varying the thickness of the wood layers, with respect to the optimized CIT panel; (ii)using an alternative core material, namely insulation cork board (ICB), and (iii)applying structurally equivalent three-layered CLT solutions, with alternative core materials. The results obtained show that the manufacturing process of the CIT panel, namely the polyurethane foam production and the press and curing processes during the panels assembly are the ones that produce the highest impacts. It was also found out that varying the thickness of the wood layers compared to the optimized solution leads, in general, to an increase in all impact categories. This means that the optimized solution in terms of economic costs is also the one which presents the lowest environmental impacts. Compared to equivalent CIT panels with ICB core and CLT solutions, the environmental performance of the panel proposed was better for some impact categories, while it was worse in others.