A Highly Sustainable Timber-Cork Modular System for Lightweight Temporary Housing

Francesco Barreca; Natale Arcuri; Giuseppe D. Cardinali; Salvatore Di Fazio; Antonino Rollo; Viviana Tirella

doi:10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-10-020

Authors

Francesco Barreca
fbarreca@unirc.it
Department of Agriculture, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Localití Feo di Vito, 89122 Reggio Calabria,, Italy
Natale Arcuri Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, P. Bucci 46C, 87036 Rende,, Italy
Giuseppe D. Cardinali Department of Agriculture, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Localití Feo di Vito, 89122 Reggio Calabria,, Italy
Salvatore Di Fazio Department of Agriculture, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Localití Feo di Vito, 89122 Reggio Calabria,, Italy
Antonino Rollo Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, P. Bucci 46C, 87036 Rende,, Italy
Viviana Tirella Department of Agriculture, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Localití Feo di Vito, 89122 Reggio Calabria,, Italy

Vol. 8 No. 10 (2022): October

Research Articles

Downloads

PDF

Abstract
How to Cite
Metrics
References
License

In recent years, global society has been subjected to great change due to unpredictable events such as pandemics, migrant flow, urban homeless, wars, and natural disasters. There has been an increased demand for fast and easily constructed buildings characterized by limited space and used for a limited time, modular and flexible self-assembly homes that are reusable without compromising comfort and environmental sustainability. A highly sustainable timber-cork modular system for lightweight temporary housing (LTH) is proposed in this paper. The structure of the proposed LTH was designed as a succession of modular timber portal frames composed of spruce boards hinged together. The concept of the prototype was a full modular shelter. It was possible to interchange every piece of the building, the structural elements, and the walls with each other. Due to the modularity of the elements of which the shelter was composed, this system could offer different solutions to the events above. The proposed LTH was analyzed in terms of its structural, thermal, and environmental performance. The structural system is very reminiscent of the platform frame, characterized by a light load-bearing frame consisting of solid timber uprights and crosspieces connected to the internal frame by means of a mechanical connection. The structural FEM analysis highlighted the structure's capacity to withstand wind with a velocity of 72 m·s^-1, corresponding to the F3 of the enhanced Fujita Scale (EF Scale) of tornado damage intensity. The thermal analysis highlighted a yearly energy use of 430.49 kWh to maintain a set-point temperature indoors of 20-26°C compared with a yearly energy use of 625.93 kWh for a common container house (CH) with the same dimensions under the same environmental conditions. Finally, a Life Cycle Analysis comparison between the proposed LTH and the CH was carried out by means of the One Click LCA software. Two different scenarios of service life were considered: one of 10 years and the other of 5 years. The results highlighted the higher sustainability of the proposed LTH than that of the CH for the required service life (Req SL) period. In particular, the calculated greenhouse gas emissions of the LTH (3.52ž10³ kgCO₂ eq) were less than 1/2 of the gas emissions of the CH (8.53ž10³) for a Req SL of 10 years and about 1/3 for a Req SL of 5 years. Furthermore, the LTH showed a value of biogenic carbon storage (7.76E2 kgCO₂) about 6 times bigger than the temporary house container (1.31E2 kgCO₂).

Doi: 10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-10-020

Full Text: PDF

Barreca, F., Arcuri, N., Cardinali, G. D., Di Fazio, S., Rollo, A., & Tirella, V. (2022). A Highly Sustainable Timber-Cork Modular System for Lightweight Temporary Housing. Civil Engineering Journal, 8(10), 2336–2352. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-10-020

Download Citation

[1] Klochko, A. R. (2022). Visions of the Future of Post-Industrial and Post-Pandemic Housing Architecture. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 988(4). doi:10.1088/1755-1315/988/4/042077.
[2] Arslan, H. (2007). Re-design, re-use and recycle of temporary houses. Building and Environment, 42(1), 400–406. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.07.032.
[3] Moreno-Sierra, A., Pieschacón, M., & Khan, A. (2020). The use of recycled plastics for the design of a thermal resilient emergency shelter prototype. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50, 101885. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101885.
[4] Radogna, D. (2018). Emergency and tourism in Abruzzo. A temporary house system. AGATHí“N, International Journal of Architecture, Art and Design, 4, 177-186. doi:10.19229/2464-9309/4222018.
[5] UN, United Nations. (2006). Exploring key changes and developments in post-disaster settlement, shelter and housing, 1982–2006: Scoping study to inform the revision of ‘Shelter after Disaster: Guidelines for Assistance. United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland.
[6] Haapio, A., & Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), 469–482. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.01.002.
[7] Gomez-Echeverri, L. (2018). Climate and development: Enhancing impact through stronger linkages in the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2119), 177–186. doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0444.
[8] Bashawri, A., Garrity, S., & Moodley, K. (2014). An Overview of the Design of Disaster Relief Shelters. Procedia Economics and Finance, 18, 924–931. doi:10.1016/s2212-5671(14)01019-3.
[9] Zafra, R. G., Mayo, J. R. M., Villareal, P. J. M., De Padua, V. M. N., Castillo, M. H. T., Sundo, M. B., & Madlangbayan, M. S. (2021). Structural and thermal performance assessment of shipping container as post-disaster housing in tropical climates. Civil Engineering Journal (Iran), 7(8), 1437–1458. doi:10.28991/cej-2021-03091735.
[10] Li, S., & Deng, K. (2019). Lightweight reconfigurable structure system (LRSS): Rethinking temporary buildings. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 183, 101–112. doi:10.2495/ARC180101.
[11] Cabeza, L. F., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Pérez, G., & Castell, A. (2014). Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 394–416. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037.
[12] Vilches, A., Garcia-Martinez, A., & Sanchez-Montañes, B. (2017). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of building refurbishment: A literature review. Energy and Buildings, 135, 286–301. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.042.
[13] Alshawawreh, L., Pomponi, F., D'Amico, B., Snaddon, S., & Guthrie, P. (2020). Qualifying the sustainability of novel designs and existing solutions for post-disaster and post-conflict sheltering. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(3). doi:10.3390/su12030890.
[14] Salvalai, G., Sesana, M. M., Brutti, D., & Imperadori, M. (2020). Design and performance analysis of a lightweight flexible nZEB. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(15), 1–26,. doi:10.3390/su12155986.
[15] Hosseini, S. M. A., Farahzadi, L., & Pons, O. (2021). Assessing the sustainability index of different post-disaster temporary housing unit configuration types. Journal of Building Engineering, 42(February), 102806. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102806.
[16] Yang, S., Wi, S., Cho, H. M., Park, J. H., Yun, B. Y., & Kim, S. (2020). Developing energy-efficient temporary houses for sustainable urban regeneration: Manufacturing homes with loess, pearlite, and vermiculite. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61(May), 102287. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2020.102287.
[17] Bovo, M., Giani, N., Barbaresi, A., Mazzocchetti, L., Barbaresi, L., Giorgini, L., Torreggiani, D., & Tassinari, P. (2022). Contribution to thermal and acoustic characterization of corn cob for bio-based building insulation applications. Energy and Buildings, 262, 111994. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.111994.
[18] Obyn, S., Van Moeseke, G., & Virgo, V. (2015). Thermal performance of shelter modelling: Improvement of temporary structures. Energy and Buildings, 89, 170–182. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.035.
[19] Barreca, F., & Fichera, C. R. (2015). Thermal insulating characteristics of cork agglomerate panels in sustainable food buildings. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1498, 358–366.
[20] Skuratov, N. (2010). New lightweight solid wood panels for green building. Proceedings of the International convention of society of wood science and technology and United Nations Economic Commission for Europe”Timber Committee, 11-14 October, 2010, Geneva, Switzerland.
[21] Naji, S., Çelik, O. C., Johnson Alengaram, U., Jumaat, M. Z., & Shamshirband, S. (2014). Structure, energy and cost efficiency evaluation of three different lightweight construction systems used in low-rise residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 84, 727–739. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.08.009.
[22] Barreca, F. (2018). Utilization of cork residues for high performance walls in green buildings. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 20(1), 47-55.
[23] Barreca, F., & Praticò, P. (2019). Environmental indoor thermal control of extra virgin olive oil storage room with phase change materials. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 50(4), 208–214. doi:10.4081/jae.2019.947.
[24] Barreca, F., & Tirella, V. (2017). A self-built shelter in wood and agglomerated cork panels for temporary use in Mediterranean climate areas. Energy and Buildings, 142, 1–7. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.003.
[25] Ni, C., He, M., & Chen, S. (2012). Evaluation of Racking Performance of Wood Portal Frames with Different Wall Configurations and Construction Details. Journal of Structural Engineering, 138(8), 984–994. doi:10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000537.
[26] Evola, G., & Marletta, L. (2014). The effectiveness of PCM wallboards for the energy refurbishment of lightweight buildings. Energy Procedia, 62, 13–21. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.362.
[27] Guralp, A. (2000). Screw pile foundations. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 47. doi:10.2495/MRS000191.
[28] Croce, P., Landi, F., Formichi, P., Beconcini, M.L., Puccini, B., Zotti, V. (2022). Non-linear Methods for the Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability of Masonry Historical Buildings. Protection of Historical Constructions. PROHITECH 2021. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, 209, Springer, Cham, Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90788-4_51.
[29] Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport. (2018). Update of the 'Technical standards for construction. Available online: https://www.donnegeometra.it/portfolio/nuove-norme-tecniche-delle-costruzioni-2018 (accessed on May 2022).
[30] Porteous, J., & Kermani, A. (2007). Structural Timber Design to Eurocode 5. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, United States. doi:10.1002/9780470697818.
[31] EN 1998-1. (2004). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
[32] Casagrande, D., Sinito, E., Izzi, M., Pasetto, G., & Polastri, A. (2021). Structural performance of a hybrid timber wall system for emergency housing facilities. Journal of Building Engineering, 33, 101566. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101566.
[33] van de Lindt, J. W., Pei, S., Pryor, S. E., Shimizu, H., & Isoda, H. (2010). Experimental Seismic Response of a Full-Scale Six-Story Light-Frame Wood Building. Journal of Structural Engineering, 136(10), 1262–1272. doi:10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000222.
[34] NTC 2018. (2018). New seismic standards for structural calculation. Available online: https://www.studiopetrillo.com/ ntc2018.html (accessed on May 2022).
[35] EN 1991-1-1. (2002). Eurocode 1: Actions on structures-Part1-1: General actions-Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
[36] EN 1995-1-1. (2004). Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
[37] He, X., Chen, Y., Ke, K., Shao, T., & Yam, M. C. H. (2022). Development of a connection equipped with fuse angles for steel moment resisting frames. Engineering Structures, 265. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114503.
[38] Doswell, C. A., Brooks, H. E., & Dotzek, N. (2009). On the implementation of the enhanced Fujita scale in the USA. Atmospheric Research, 93(1–3), 554–563. doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2008.11.003.
[39] Barreca, F., & Praticò, P. (2018). Post-occupancy evaluation of buildings for sustainable agri-food production-A method applied to an olive oil mill. Buildings, 8(7), 83. doi:10.3390/buildings8070083.
[40] Bruno, R., Arcuri, N., & Carpino, C. (2015). The passive house in Mediterranean area: Parametric analysis and dynamic simulation of the thermal behaviour of an innovative prototype. Energy Procedia, 82, 533–539. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.866.
[41] Santolini, E., Bovo, M., Barbaresi, A., Torreggiani, D., & Tassinari, P. (2021). Turning agricultural wastes into biomaterials: Assessing the sustainability of scenarios of circular valorization of corn cob in a life-cycle perspective. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 11(14). doi:10.3390/app11146281.
[42] Gómez, J., Tascón, A., & Ayuga, F. (2018). Systematic layout planning of wineries: the case of Rioja region (Spain). Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 49(1), 34–41. doi:10.4081/jae.2018.778.
[43] Bruno, R., Bevilacqua, P., Rollo, A., Barreca, F., & Arcuri, N. (2022). A Novel Bio-Architectural Temporary Housing Designed for the Mediterranean Area: Theoretical and Experimental Analysis. Energies, 15(9). doi:10.3390/en15093243.
[44] Barbaresi, A., Bovo, M., Santolini, E., Barbaresi, L., Torreggiani, D., & Tassinari, P. (2020). Development of a low-cost movable hot box for a preliminary definition of the thermal conductance of building envelopes. Building and Environment, 180, 107034. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107034.
[45] UNI/TS 11300-1:2014. (2014). Energy performance of buildings-Part1: Evaluation of energy need for space heating and cooling. UNI UN MONDO FATTO BENE. (In Italian).
[46] Arcuri, N., Bruno, R., & Bevilacqua, P. (2015). Influence of the optical and geometrical properties of indoor environments for the thermal performances of chilled ceilings. Energy and Buildings, 88, 229–237. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.009.
[47] Asdrubali, F., Baldassarri, C., & Fthenakis, V. (2013). Life cycle analysis in the construction sector: Guiding the optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy and Buildings, 64, 73–89. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.04.018.
[48] Kubba, S. (2012). Handbook of Green Building Design and Construction. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, United Kingdom. doi:10.1016/c2009-0-64483-4.
[49] Mattoni, B., Guattari, C., Evangelisti, L., Bisegna, F., Gori, P., & Asdrubali, F. (2018). Critical review and methodological approach to evaluate the differences among international green building rating tools. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 950–960. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.105.
[50] Ameen, R. F. M., Mourshed, M., & Li, H. (2015). A critical review of environmental assessment tools for sustainable urban design. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 55, 110–125. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2015.07.006.
[51] Allotey, I. A. (1987). Low-cost test rig for structural engineering tests. Materials and Structures, 20(5), 370–373. doi:10.1007/BF02472584.
[52] Elamin, M. D. E. (2020). Life cycle assessment as a decision-making tool in the design choices of buildings. Masters Thesis, Territorial, Urban, Environmental and Landscape Planning, Polytechnic University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
[53] BS EN 15978:2011. (2012). Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of environmental performance of buildings. Calculation method. British Standard Institute (BSI), London, United Kingdom.
[54] ISO 14044:2006. (2022). Environmental management-Life cycle assessment-Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.
[55] EN 15804. (2022). European Standard for the generation of EPD for construction products. BRE Trust, Watford, United Kingdom.
[56] BS EN 15804:2012+A1:2013. (2014). Sustainability of construction works. Environmental product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products. British Standard Institute (BSI), London, United Kingdom.
[57] Koke, J., Schippmann, A., Shen, J., Zhang, X., Kaufmann, P., & Krause, S. (2021). Strategies of design concepts and energy systems for nearly zero-energy container buildings (NZECBs) in different climates. Buildings, 11(8), 364. doi:10.3390/buildings11080364.

Publication Start Year:	2015
JCR 2023 Impact Factor (IF):	4.3
JIF QUARTILE:	Q1
SJR 2023 Quartile:	Q1
Acceptance Rate:	27%
Review Speed (Average):	76 days
Issue Per Year:	12
Number of Volumes:	10
Number of Issues:	107
Number of Articles:	1552
Number of Reviewers:	3417
Number of Contributors:	3604
Contributing Countries:	86
No. of WoS Citations:	7986
WoS h-index:	34
Scopus CiteScore:	7.0
No. of Google Citations:	17324
Google h-index:	47
Google i10-index:	393
Abstract Views:	5,819,908
PDF Download:	3,790,637

A Highly Sustainable Timber-Cork Modular System for Lightweight Temporary Housing

Authors

Downloads

Login

Publisher and Affiliated Societies

Publisher & Affiliated Societies

Indexing & Abstracting

SidebarMenu

Journal Imprint

Journal Imprint

Journal Metrics

IndexedBy

Indexed In

Follow us

Follow Us

Most Cited Articles

The ITB Unit Hydrograph Method: A Novel Approach to User-Defined Unit Hydrograph Development (Part II)

Sustainable Interlocking Blocks Containing Sugarcane Bagasse Ash: Structural Integrity, Cost Efficiency, and Environmental Benefits

Design a No-Fine Concrete Using Epoxy in Pavement

Energy Optimization in Residential Buildings: Evaluating PCM-CLT Wall Systems Across U.S. Climate Zones

Revolutionizing Recycled Aggregate Concrete: A Dual Approach Using HCl Treatment and Silica Fume

visitors

Analytics

Information

Address

Contact Info: