English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The residential building sector regularly satisfies a diverse range of housing needs whilst addressing respective capital-cost considerations. Designers and builders must also be aware of the environmental implications of their design specifications; the work here adds to a body of knowledge concerned with carbon footprint and embodied energy demand, specifically through an examination of alternative roof-covering materials. A life cycle assessment (LCA) has been carried out, within a West Australian context, to compare impacts for the roof specification options of: clay tile; concrete tile; and sheet metal. In locations where recycling facilities are unavailable and thus disregarded, it is found that clay tiles have the lowest carbon footprint of 4.4 t of CO2 equivalent (CO2e-) and embodied energy demand of 52.7 Mega Joule (MJ) per 100 m2, while sheet-metal roofing has the highest carbon footprint (9.85 t of CO2e-), with concrete roof tiles having the highest embodied energy demand (83 MJ). Findings confirm that a sheet-metal roof can obtain significant carbon and embodied energy saving benefits (i.e. 71–73%) compared to clay tile or concrete roof covers through ongoing encouragement of recycling strategies and increased local recycling facilities able to embrace residual cradle-to-cradle material reuse.

Carbon footprint and embodied energy assessment of roof-covering materials