Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Life-time performance of post-disaster temporary housing:

A case study in Nanjing
Yiming Song a,b,∗ , Nalanie Mithraratne b , Hong Zhang a
a
School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China
b
Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117566, Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Temporary housing is crucial to disaster recovery, due to the demand for large numbers within a short
Received 12 May 2016 period. The short life cycle and unique functional requirements associated with temporary housing
Received in revised form 6 July 2016 could lead to significant environmental impacts. However these have not been adequately investigated.
Accepted 7 July 2016
This paper focuses on the life cycle performance of light-framed temporary housing in China with local
Available online 12 July 2016
technologies, taking Chinese electricity mix of each process and domestic transportation distances into
consideration. The research selects four popular temporary housing in China, calculates the material
Keywords:
requirements and compares the life cycle impact of different wall assemblies based on Future House built
Rapidly deployable structures
Disaster shelters
in Nanjing. While energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are used as surrogate indicators of
Life cycle performance environmental impact, total life-time impact is established by including construction energy, operating
Greenhouse gas emissions energy, maintenance energy and end-of-life energy and corresponding greenhouse gas emissions. It was
CO2 emissions found that the life cycle energy of post-disaster temporary housing is much higher in comparison to low
Energy intensity energy buildings with construction energy contributing 65% to life cycle energy due to unique require-
ments. The results also show that life cycle energy of post-disaster shelters could be reduced by using
recycled materials, lighter structural materials and light wall cladding materials.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Background
A variety of natural disasters take place all over the world every
year, making many homeless and bringing significant impacts in
the construction sector. In China, the great interest in post-disaster
temporary housing originated in Wenchuan Earthquake and its
aftershocks in 2008, which destroyed a large number of buildings,
and left millions of people homeless. It was estimated that the eco-
nomic loss run higher than US$75 billion, making the earthquake
one of the costliest natural disasters in Chinese history (http://
en.wikipedia.org). The severe damage caused by the earthquake
brought massive increase in the number of disaster shelters as res-
idential buildings accounted for 27.4% of the total loss (http://zh.
wikipedia.org).
Disasters not only cause environmental destruction but also
severe social issues. The need to reconstruct their homes and lives
could lead to confusion and desperation causing extreme psy-
chological stress for those affected. Post disaster accommodation
∗ Corresponding author at: School of Architecture, Southeast University, Nanjing
210096, China.
E-mail address: yiming.song@foxmail.com (Y. Song).
is therefore vital not only for personal safety, protection from
natural elements, and resistance to disease and ill health, but also
for people’s psychological integrity. These conflicting considera-
tions typically prolong post-disaster recovery times, sometimes
by more than two years. The prolonged recovery time further
increases the difficulty of rebuilding post-disaster lives. Through
these temporary housing, the external environmental stresses of
the refugees can be minimized [1].
There seems to be confusion on post-disaster accommoda-
tion types, basic functions expected and the terminology used.
Bashawri et al., suggests that post-disaster shelters include plas-
tic sheets, tents, prefabricated housing, and public community
buildings such as leisure centers, university halls of residence,
places of worship, sports venues and private rentals while oth-
ers argue for distinction between accommodation provided at
four different stages after a disaster [2–4]. Quarantelli identified
shelters (emergency shelters and temporary shelters) as accom-
modation provided in the first two stages, i.e., immediately after
a disaster until a couple of weeks, during which time all daily
activities of occupants, such as work and schooling, are sus-
pended, and housing (temporary housing and permanent housing)
as accommodation provided in the latter stages [5]. As such, tem-
porary housing should be designed not only to accommodate daily

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.019
0378-7788/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 Y. Song et al. / Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404
activities of the occupants but also to last from 6 months to
3 years.
Many temporary housing widely used in the market are
designed and planned using lightweight structures so that they
can be easily erected, dismantled and stored for future use, avoid-
ing great energy consumption during prolonged recovery time and
reducing demolition energy consumption by recycling and reusing.
Meanwhile, compared with simple tents, this kind of temporary
housing could provide a more secure, stable and convenient living
environment for people, who cannot return to their own houses
immediately after a disaster, in order to meet the needs of daily
life.
However, there are still some deficiencies in the existing tem-
porary housing solutions due to the lack of mature prototype and
limited design cycle for post-disaster temporary housing. Chen
et al. indicated that some temporary housing solutions provide poor
sound insulation and heat dissipation performance as a result of
inappropriate choice of partition wall material, inadequate wall
thickness, leading to the increase of operating energy [1]. And
another study evaluating 5,135 temporary housing units con-
structed to accommodate victims of the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in
Taiwan, found that poor ventilation also contribute the poor indoor
environment and higher operating energy [6].
It can be seen that the studies on temporary housing at
present have paid more attention to the physical aspects such
as material properties and building configuration, which directly
impact on the users’ living quality. Nevertheless, as operation
is only a part of the whole life cycle, the research attempts to
take construction, maintenance and recycling into consideration
and put forward some suggestions to the design of temporary
housing.
This paper focuses on the environmental performance of
temporary housing and designing for reuse. It investigates the envi-
ronmental performance in terms of energy and greenhouse gas
emissions, of four wall assemblies using light-framed construc-
tions, either widely used in China or developed by research teams
in universities. The temporary house design used here is the Future
House, which was designed and built in 2013, by research team of
Southeast University, China [7].
2. Housing assemblies
Future House is a residential building with supporting facili-
ties, such as kitchen and bathroom modules, designed as a kit-set
adopting the modular structure and standard components so it can
be assembled easily to reduce the construction period and invest-
ment. It is a lightweight construction that could be removed and
transported with ease. In addition, the de-constructable structure
making the building partly or completely reusable could reduce the
demolition energy, while the composite envelope systems achieve
higher sound and thermal performance and energy-efficiency and
consume less operating energy.
Future House consists of two structural units, 6 m × 3 m and
6 m × 2 m, providing about 30 m2 indoor space and 15 m2 outdoor
platform. The building is equipped with solar photovoltaic and
thermal systems, which can satisfy its daily operating needs, and
a small-size kitchen module and an integrated bathroom module.
Movable partitions fixed by cross rails on the ceiling of the building,
separate the interior space to meet the needs of different func-
tional spaces such as dining room, bedroom, etc. The construction
of Future House took only 16 days from preparation of materials
to installation of related equipment. The Future House is a typ-
ical case of industrialized construction method—initially built in
the factory, forming two main modules and two roof modules,
transported to the construction site by trucks for final assembly,
395
which took about 7 h in this case. Future House has been dis-
assembled, transported and assembled for several times since it
was first constructed, realizing the possibility to make a quick
turnover.
The study presented in this paper focuses on alternative wall
assemblies, retaining the structure, plan and materials (roof, floor,
windows and doors) constant. The plan of the building integrat-
ing two structural units of 6000 mm × 2100 mm × 3000 mm and
6000 mm × 2900 mm × 3000 mm, with a 20-mm-wide space in
between is shown in Fig. 1. The composite roof construction with
interdigitated U-shaped stainless steel plate outer layer ensures
waterproofing while double timber board encased rock wool insu-
lation inner layer provides improved thermal performance (see
Fig. 1). The floor construction uses gypsum board as the outer layer
and the same inner layer assembly of roof as the inner layer (see
Fig. 1).
The four different wall assemblies used are as follows:
(1) Base assembly:
This is the most widely used wall assembly for temporary
shelters in China, which originated from the shelters in Japan
and gained popularity in China since 1980s. This kind of shelter
with low cost, rapid construction and ability to be disassembled
is commonly used as temporary shelters on construction sites
or post-disaster area. However, being a system mass-produced
in a factory at a low cost, it usually provides poor comfort con-
ditions and no aesthetic appeal during its short life cycle. The
wall assembly in this research, which is used most commonly
in temporary shelters in China, consists of two steel sheets
with polyurethane foam embedded between them (Fig. 2: Base
assembly).
(2) Proposal 1:
This design is based on the wall assembly of the multi-
function shelter developed and built by SEU in 2012 (Fig. 2:
Proposal 1). The inner and outermost layers use aluminum
sheet, with rubber strips in between to maintain airtightness,
fixed to the structure using stainless steel components. The
gap between the innermost and outermost aluminum sheets is
filled with polyurethane foam thermal insulation and a 28 mm
thick air gap. The polyurethane foam is divided into two parts
for the convenience of installation and fixation. The first part is
of 80 mm, as thick as the frame, and it is cut into suitable shape
in order to avoid conflict with the structural profiles. The other
part is rectangular and has a thickness of 120 mm.
(3) Proposal 2:
This is the wall assembly of Future House (Fig. 2: Proposal 2).
The outermost layer is similar in construction to that of Proposal
1, with polyurethane foam filling inside. And the inner layer is
made up of two timber boards with rock wool insulation inside
to improve its thermal properties. The 80 mm × 30 mm timber
keels between the timber boards are embedded in the rock wool
insulation, making the inner layer more stable. There is also an
air gap of 80 mm as in Proposal 1, the same thickness as the
structural profiles, between the inner layer and the outer layer,
in order to improve its thermal insulation properties.
(4) Proposal 3:
This design uses the wall assembly of Newbud Building Sys-
tem (Fig. 2: Proposal 3), researched by Professor Zhu Jingxiang
from Chinese University of Hong Kong [8]. This proposal uses
timber boards in the outermost layer, fixed to the structure
using stainless steel components. There is a 100 mm air gap
and a gypsum board vapor barrier between the inner layer and
the outer layer to regulate the micro-environment and provide
a stable indoor climate. The inner layer is a composite panel
composed of timber framework and boards on both sides with
EPS insulation board in the middle. As a result, the envelope
396 Y. Song et al. / Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404

Fig. 1. Plan, roof and floor construction of Future House.

construction could ensure both thermal performance and struc-
tural stability at the same time.
3. Methodology
As a first step, construction materials necessary to construct
the Future House building (see Fig. 1) with these four wall assem-
blies while retaining the structure, roof, floor doors and windows
constant, were calculated separately; wall assemblies and constant
parts. The materials used by the constant building components and
wall assemblies are both shown in Table 4.
3.1. Construction energy
Construction energy is the total energy consumption during
the construction phase, including each building product’s con-
sumption of raw materials, primary and secondary processing, and
transport to assembly site. Then, construction resource require-
ments for Future House design were calculated using ecoinvent
(version 2.2) database. The selected indicators are global warm-
ing potential (kg CO2 eq) and cumulative energy demand (MJ). The
production processors and steps are different for different build-
ing components even they are made up of the same material. For
example, aluminum sheet may be subjected to sawing, scalping,
hot rolling, cold rolling, solution heat treatment, powder coating,
finishing and packaging, while aluminum profile processing steps
can be sawing, scalping, preheating, extrusion, stretching, sawing,
ageing and packaging. In addition, the material wastage during pro-
duction also varies depending on component forms. For example,
the amounts of primary aluminum required to produce 1 kg alu-
minum sheets and 1 kg aluminum profiles are different, due to
different losses during rolling and extrusion processes. Therefore,
the data should be extracted and calculated accurately according
to both material and the form.
 Y. Song et al. / Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404 397

Fig. 2. Four wall assemblies.

The source data used, i.e., ecoinvent data, is based on building
product manufacturing processes in the European countries (e.g.,
Switzerland, etc.). Considering that building product manufacture
is similar worldwide, albeit with varying efficiency, differences in
the amount of raw materials, processing methods and equipment
among different countries are negligible. However, the fuel mix for
electricity and electricity generation methods, vary from one coun-
try to the other and this could have implications on the energy and
emissions of end products. Therefore, the original electricity mix
of each process involved in manufacture of building products has
been replaced with the corresponding Chinese value. The construc-
tion energy and GHG emissions of the alternatives thus calculated
are shown in Table 5. Building materials/products are assumed to
be manufactured in the same region where the final building is
constructed and as such transport has been disregarded.
3.2. Operating energy
Energy Plus (Version 8.1), developed by the National Renew-
able Energy Laboratory [9], was used to establish the building’s
energy consumption during its operating stage with alternative
wall assemblies, assuming that the building is located in Nanjing,
Jiangsu Province, China, (the same location as Future House). The
simulation is based on the weather statistics provided by Energy
Plus and hypothetical mode for HVAC operating, along with phys-
ical performance parameters of different materials as defined in
“Thermal design code for civil building”, as shown in Table 1 [10].
It was assumed that two people occupied the disaster shel-
ter and that there are different schedules based on weekdays
and holidays. As it is customary for Chinese to work from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the weekdays were divided to three periods:

Table 1
Physical performance parameters of different materials based on “Thermal design code for civil building”.

F01 F02 F03 F04 F05 F06 F07

Steel Aluminum Timber Timber Timber Gypsum Gypsum
6 mm 10 mm 20 mm 8 mm 50 mm

Thickness m 0.005 0.002 0.006 0.01 0.02 0.008 0.05

Conductivity W/(m K) 58.2 203 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.33 0.33
Density kg/m3 7850 2700 600 600 600 1050 1050
Specific heat KJ/(kg K) 0.48 0.92 2.51 2.51 2.51 1.05 1.05

I01 I02 I03 I04 I05

Polyurethane Polyurethane Polyurethane Rock Polystyrene
26 mm 80 mm 120 mm Wool

Thickness m 0.026 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.04

Conductivity W/(m K) 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.045 0.042
Density kg/m3 30 30 30 100 30
Specific heat KJ/(kg K) 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.22 1.38

A01 A02 A03 A04

Wall Wall Wall Ceiling
Air gap Air gap Air gap Air gap

Thickness m >0.06 0.03 0.02 0.08

Thermal resistance (m2 K)/W 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.18
398 Y. Song et al. / Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404
Table 2
Maintenance cycles of building materials.
Building component Material
Structure Aluminum frame
Steel fastener
Roof Steel sheets, battens
Insulation
Wooden boards, keels
Floor Plaster boards
Insulation
Wooden boards, keels
Doors and windows Aluminum window frame
Glazing
Walls Steel sheets
Aluminum sheets
Wooden boards, keels
Plaster boards
Insulation
00:00–09:00, 09:00–17:00 and 17:00–24:00. During the period
from 00:00 to 09:00 and 17:00 to 24:00, the HVAC system starts
heating when the temperature is below 20 ◦ C and cooling over
25 ◦ C, and the electric engine was set to full load to ensure effi-
cient operation of HVAC system. However, during work time from
09:00 to 17:00, the heating setpoint is 10 ◦ C and cooling setpoint is
35 ◦ C and the electric engine was set to half load to operate at low
intensity of HVAC system. The electric engine was set to full load
and operated 24 h to maintain the indoor temperature between
20 ◦ C and 25 ◦ C over the weekends and during Chinese holidays. The
special public holidays during the run period are based on Chinese
holidays in 2014.
The simulation generated by Energy Plus shows the energy used
for heating and cooling. Assuming that both heating and cool-
ing energy are entirely provided by electricity, the total electrical
energy was calculated including network losses, which are on
average 6.53% in China [11]. The carbon emissions produced by
electricity are based on the Chinese value in ecoinvent database.
The results of operating energy and GHG emissions simulation
are shown in Table 6.
3.3. Maintenance energy
The useful life of a building depends on its function and struc-
ture in addition to market forces. “Urban and rural planning law”,
defines a temporary building as the constructions and facilities
with simple structures, which should be removed within the pre-
scribed period, generally no more than two years [12]. However,
“Unified standard for reliability design of building structures” indi-
cated that the durable life span of temporary building is 15 years
if properly maintained [13]. The life span of Future House build-
ing is assumed to be 15 years, with 100% recyclability of all the
materials. Considering that the lifetime of temporary housing for
post-disaster accommodation is roughly three years, this implies
that the structure undergoes five deconstruction-reconstruction
cycles during its lifetime [4].
In general, most building materials have a shorter life compared
with the buildings. As such, timely maintenance and replacement
of materials or components with a shorter service life are needed,
in order to ensure that the building is operated optimally during
its use phase. Conversely, if the useful life of a building is shorter,
the materials and components that have a residual life should be
collected for reusing or recycling after the building is demolished.
At present, there are no guidelines on the replacement intervals
of building materials and components used in China, although
some overseas research has published service life estimates. The
useful life estimates for the materials and components used in
the Future House to maintain an average living standard were
Replace cycle (year) Repaint cycle (year)
100 –
100 –
40 10
40 –
30 8
100 –
40 –
30 8
60 –
60 –
40 10
40 10
30 8
100 –
40 –
established using published data and are summarized in Table 2
[14–17]. It can be seen that, service life of each material and
component is longer than the temporary building life (15 years)
considered here for post disaster accommodation. The published
estimates are for buildings lasting 60 years or more and as such
are based on the assumption that once constructed the building
will remain intact for the duration. However, in this case Future
House is likely to be deconstructed-reconstructed five times over
the 15-year period, leading to some material damage. However,
it was assumed that, materials would not be replaced during the
life of the building, and could be collected and re-used after the
building is deconstructed instead.
Nonetheless, periodic maintenance of related materials to guar-
antee normal use in their life cycle is inevitable. Roof, wall panels
and flooring of permanent buildings usually need to be repainted
with a longer cycle as shown in Table 2. Since Future House is a tem-
porary building, the research assumed that repainting is done after
each installation at 3-year intervals. The maintenance energy use
for wall assemblies and constant components are shown in Table 7
respectively. These were estimated based on ecoinvent data and the
same calculating method as construction energy.
3.4. Energy used at the end-of-life
The energy used at the end-of-life depend on two parameters;
method of disposal/recycling of demolition waste, and mode and
distances of waste transport. Although the recycling technology has
improved over the years, the building materials recycling rate is
relatively low due to extensive demolition activities in China at
present, generating large amounts of waste materials difficult to
be either recycled or reused. The need for landfill disposal of waste
has caused many environmental problems and greatly increases
energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with
buildings.
The lightweight structure of the building in this research has
been designed so it can be easily disassembled, and therefore, it is
assumed that all components of the building are reused.
Existing studies vary in terms of the classification of recy-
cle processes as a result of different principles and perspectives
involved. For instance, Gao et al. divided the recycling process
into product recycle, material recycle and feedstock recycle based
on whether the material is manufactured or not [18]; Chini and
Bruening defined downcycling, recycling and upcycling based on
increase or decrease of properties after the materials are collected
and manufactured, while Calkins showed that downcycling is suit-
able for most materials as properties always decrease [19,20].
McDonough and Braungart in “cradle-to-cradle” concept classified
recycle methods into biological cycle and technical cycle according
 Y. Song et al. / Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404 399

Table 3
Recycling methods of building materials.

Type Material Recycled material Recycled product Method Distance (km) Source

Steel Steel sheet Raw steel Steel sheet Recycle 68.6 Gao et al. (2000)
Steel product Raw steel Steel product Recycle 68.6 Gao et al. (2000)
Aluminum Aluminum profile – Aluminum profile Reuse 0
Aluminum sheet Raw aluminum Aluminum sheet Recycle 0 Gao et al. (2000)
Window frame Recycled ground metal Aluminum sash Recycle 0 Gao et al. (2000)
Wood Timber board Single sheet Glued laminated wood Recycle 24.8 Gao et al. (2000)
Timber keel Wood chip Timber board Recycle 24.8 Gao et al. (2000)
Plaster Plaster board Recycled plaster Plaster board Recycle 50.9 Gao et al. (2000)
Glass Glazing Glass Glass bottle Downcycle 33.5 Vefago (2012)
Rubber – – – Landfill 38.7
Insulation Polyurethane foam Plastic particles Polyurethane foam Recycle 57.6 Zia et al. (2007)
Rock wool Substitute for coarse and – Downcycle 50.9 Cheng et al. (2011)
fine aggregates
Polystyrene foam Plastic particles Polystyrene foam Recycle 50.9 Ecoinvent

Table 4 In this study, all materials and components are assumed to be

Material requirements of Future House.
sorted in good condition after the shelter is deconstructed, and
Component Material Qty Unit the recycling methods are summarized in Table 3. The recycling
Constant components processes are based on the sources listed in the table, while the
Structure Aluminum (Profile) 1133.28 kg distances are calculated according to the situation in Nanjing. The
Stainless steel 22.40 kg waste management process data are based on ecoinvent database,
Windows and doors Window frame (Aluminum) 0.19 m3 while transport distances are calculated using Google Maps based
Glass (8 mm) 12.42 m2
on the most popular waste management facilities in proximity to
Roof and floor Timber (Board) 1.14 m3
Timber (Keel) 0.42 m3 the site in Nanjing identified from a web search. The demolition
Stainless steel 1978.06 kg energy for both constant and variable sections was also calculated
Rock wool 4.12 m3 separately, based on the weight of different materials and ecoinvent
Gypsum board (50 mm) 28.21 m2
data for processes involved.
Wall assemblies The results for end-of-life energy and GHG emissions are shown
Base assembly Light steel 3382.96 kg in Table 8.
Polyurethane 3.16 m3
Proposal 1 Aluminum 657.35 kg
Polyurethane 7.52 m3 4. Results
Stainless steel 72.63 kg
Rubber 0.02 m3
Proposal 2 Aluminum 363.24 kg
4.1. Material requirements
Polyurethane 1.05 m3
Rock wool 2.65 m3 Table 4 shows the material requirements for both constant com-
Stainless steel 262.58 kg ponents and four wall assemblies proposed for the Future House
Rubber 0.03 m3
design.
Timber (Board) 0.76 m3
Timber (Keel) 0.31 m3 It can be seen that the quantity of metals in the building
Proposal 3 Timber (Board) 1.33 m3 structures, which include aluminum profiles and stainless steel
Timber (Keel) 0.19 m3 components is much higher than that in wall assemblies. This table
Stainless steel 262.58 kg
also indicates that the base assembly used high quantity of light
Rubber 0.03 m3
Gypsum (8 mm) 36.41 m2
steel in the walls, while Proposal 1 and Proposal 2 use less alu-
EPS 1.49 m3 minum as the surface of walls, and Proposal 3 predominantly use
timber instead metals.

to different regulating base, while Vefago and Avellaneda by tak-
ing recycling ways, properties and applications into consideration
defined recycled, infracycled, reused or infraused materials [21,22].
At present, landfill and incineration are the most popular ways of
dealing with building materials that cannot be recycled.
4.2. Construction energy
Table 5 shows the construction energy and greenhouse gas
emissions of four proposals. The data indicates that the construc-
tion energy of base assembly is over twice that of Proposal 1, and

Table 5
Construction energy and GHG emissions of alternative proposals.

Wall assemblies Base assembly Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3

Construction energy (GJ) 467.46 234.63 177.02 106.18

Non-renewable 435.31 207.64 130.63 61.90
Renewable 32.15 26.99 46.39 44.28
GHG (t CO2 eq) 30.18 13.60 9.34 3.97

Constant components Structure Roof&Floor Window&Door Total

Construction energy (GJ) 249.77 399.74 77.71 727.22

Non-renewable 208.12 313.71 66.76 588.59
Renewable 41.65 86.03 10.95 138.63
GHG (t CO2 eq) 16.48 22.35 4.88 43.71
400 Y. Song et al. / Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404

Table 6
Operating energy and GHG emissions of alternative proposals.

Base assembly Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3

Operating energy (GJ) 358.50 349.20 335.55 376.50

Annual 23.90 23.28 22.37 25.10
Life span 15 15 15 15
GHG (t CO2 eq) 125.5 122.25 117.47 131.81

Table 7
Maintenance energy and GHG emissions of alternative proposals.

Wall assemblies Base assembly Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3

Maintenance energy (GJ) 42.70 36.10 25.10 12.20

Non-renewable 41.60 35.10 24.45 11.90
Renewable 1.10 1.00 0.65 0.30
GHG (t CO2 eq) 2.70 2.45 1.65 0.75

Constant components Structure Roof&Floor Window&Door Total

Maintenance energy (GJ) 0.00 52.00 0.00 52.00

Non-renewable 0.00 50.70 0.00 50.70
Renewable 0.00 1.30 0.00 1.30
GHG (t CO2 eq) 0.00 3.30 0.00 3.30

the energy consumption of Proposal 3 is the least due to the use of
timber instead of light steel and aluminum. Compared to construc-
tion energy of wall assemblies, the constant components consumed
much more, nearly 6.85 times as the wall assembly of Proposal 3.
The sequence of carbon emissions is the same with energy con-
sumption: Base assembly ranks the first place, the data decreased
gradually from Proposal 1 to Proposal 3, while the result of constant
components is higher than all the four wall assemblies. However,
the differences among the results are much larger. For example,
the carbon emissions of Proposal 3 only accounts for 13% of base
assembly and 9% of constant components.
steel maintenance, and the maintenance energy of Proposal 3 is
least due to use of timber instead of metals. The higher mainte-
nance energy of metals is mainly caused by the powder coating
process during repainting metals, which costs about 66.7 MJ/m2 for
aluminum sheets while it is even higher for steel sheets, reaching
85.3 MJ/m2 . Furthermore, only roof and floor need to be repainted
among the constant components, and the energy requirement is
even more than that of walls in base assembly due to the large
amount of steel used in the roof. Besides, the carbon emissions of
both four assemblies and constant components are proportional to
respective maintenance energy.

4.3. Operating energy 4.5. End-of-life energy

Table 6 shows the operating energy and GHG emissions of
alternative proposals. It reveals that the difference between the
annual operating energy and carbon emissions of four proposals
is not as much as the difference in construction energy. The oper-
ating energy is related to the physical performance of alternative
wall assemblies, depending on not only the physical parameters
of materials, but also the composition of walls. The results indi-
cate that the four wall assemblies considered are of similar thermal
performance.
4.4. Maintenance energy
The maintenance energy, shown in Table 7, is calculated based
on the 3-year repaint cycle of materials. It can be seen that the
base assembly requires more energy to repaint the walls than the
other proposals as a result of the higher energy consumption of
Table 8 shows the end-of-life energy used for alternative propo-
sals. Transportation of materials is a major contributor, which vary
depending on modes, weight of materials and transport distance.
As can be seen from Table 8, the base assembly needs more end-
of-life energy and generates more carbon emissions than all the
other proposals, and the results also indicate that building struc-
ture accounts for nearly 50% of both end-of-life energy and carbon
emissions of constant components.
4.6. Life cycle impact
Life cycle energy (GJ) and total greenhouse gas emissions
(t CO2 eq) are used as surrogate indicators of environmental impact
in this paper. The life cycle energy, which includes construc-
tion energy, operating energy, maintenance energy and end-of-life
energy, is shown in Table 9. The result shows that the energy cost

Table 8
End-of-life energy and GHG emissions of alternative proposals.

Wall assemblies Base assembly Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3

End-of-life energy (GJ) 0.85 1.77 1.32 0.57

Non-renewable 0.84 1.73 1.29 0.56
Renewable 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.01
GHG (t CO2 eq) 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.04

Constant components Structure Roof&Floor Window&Door Total

End-of-life energy (GJ) 2.62 1.52 1.22 5.36

Non-renewable 2.57 1.49 1.20 5.26
Renewable 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.10
GHG (t CO2 eq) 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.31
 Y. Song et al. / Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404 401

Table 9
Life cycle energy and GHG emissions of alternative proposals.

Base assembly Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3

Construction energy (GJ) 1194.68 961.85 904.24 833.40

Operating energy (GJ) 358.50 349.20 335.55 376.50
Maintenance energy (GJ) 94.70 88.10 77.10 64.20
End-of-life energy (GJ) 6.21 7.13 6.68 5.93
Life cycle energy (GJ) 1654.09 1406.28 1323.57 1280.03

Construction GHG (t CO2 eq) 73.89 57.31 53.05 47.68

Operating GHG (t CO2 eq) 125.50 122.25 117.47 131.81
Maintenance GHG (t CO2 eq) 6.00 5.75 4.95 4.05
End-of-life GHG (t CO2 eq) 0.36 0.42 0.40 0.35
Life cycle GHG (t CO2 eq) 205.75 185.73 175.87 183.89

by base assembly during its whole life span is 1655.19 GJ, which
reduces by approximately 15%, 20% and 23% for Proposal 1, Pro-
posal 2 and Proposal 3 respectively. The greenhouse gas emissions
of base assembly are also more than that of the other three propo-
sals. The Proposal 3 is proved to be the best design out of the four
wall assemblies for life cycle impact, while Proposal 2 performs
best in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
4.7. Comparison
As seen above, of the four wall assemblies, Proposal 3 has the
least life cycle energy at 1282.6 GJ, and also the lowest life cycle
energy intensity, at approximately 11,876 kWh/m2 . The life cycle
energy intensity is higher than that reported for low energy build-
ings, such as 7850 kWh/m2 [23] and 4700 kWh/m2 [24] while, it
is lower than the results of well-insulated residential buildings
with steel frame, 14,940 kWh/m2 in Belgium and 17,699 kWh/m2
in Sweden [25]. The high energy-intensity of shelters is a result
of the special situation of application, requiring rapid deployment
and metal structural frame such as light-steel frame that can be
disassembled quickly. In this case, the energy of the structure is
approximately 19% of the life cycle energy and 30% of the total con-
struction energy, comparable with 27.3% of construction energy
reported by Gaspar and Santos [26]. Their study used aluminum as
its structural material, having an important impact on the increase
of both construction energy and life cycle energy, as aluminum is
by far the most energy intensive material [26].
The percentage of construction energy depends on the useful
life, location of the building and its operating demands. Thormark
[23] indicated that the percentage is approximately 40% for resi-
dential buildings, and the proportion is 44% according the results
of Mithraratne et al. (2007) [17,23]. Huberman and Pearlmutter
showed that the construction energy represents between 10–60%
of the total energy used during the lifetime of the building, while the
percentage of construction energy reaches 65% in this research [27].
Despite the influence of aluminum frame, the cases studied in above
research all have a life cycle of 50 years or more. But the disaster
shelter studied here is a temporary building with a shorter lifetime
and frequent maintenance cycles, resulting in reduced operating
energy and increased maintenance energy, leading to a higher pro-
portion of total construction energy at the same time.
Making use of recycled materials could also have a positive
impact on reducing the energy of building, as the energy consump-
tion could be decreased by approximately 10–25% with recycled
materials [18]. It can also be seen from the energy intensity of
relevant materials. For example, the energy intensity of virgin alu-
minum is 191.00 MJ/kg and that of recycled aluminum is 8.10 MJ/kg,
while for virgin steel it is 32.00 MJ/kg and for recycled steel it
is 10.10 MJ/kg [28]. Therefore, with the development of recycling
technologies, more recycled materials could be included in design
and construction of buildings, leading to lower energy intensities.
5. Discussion
5.1. Structure
As mentioned above, the structure of temporary housing has a
higher proportion of life cycle energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions. Therefore, this study uses light steel as structural
material instead of aluminum, and recalculates each part’s con-
sumption as shown in Table 10 and Fig. 3. As a result, the life cycle
energy of light steel structure could be reduced by 244.45 GJ, due
to the reduction in construction energy (241.93 GJ) and end-of-life
energy (2.52 GJ). In addition, the life cycle energy of four propo-
sals will decrease by 15%, 17%, 18% and 19% successively. On the
other hand, the light steel structure will produced 15.85 t CO2 eq
less than aluminum structure, making the life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions of base assembly decrease 8% and the other three
proposals 9%.
5.2. Cladding
It can be seen from Fig. 4 that both construction energy and
operating energy are much more than end-of-life energy, while
construction energy in the four wall assemblies are more than

Table 10
Decline in life cycle energy and GHG emissions with light steel structure.

Base assembly Proposal 1 Proposal 2 Proposal 3

Construction energy (GJ) 20.25% 25.15% 26.76% 29.03%

Operating energy (GJ) – – – –
Maintenance energy (GJ) – – – –
End-of-life energy (GJ) 40.58% 35.34% 37.72% 42.50%
Life cycle energy (GJ) 14.78% 17.38% 18.47% 19.10%

Construction GHG (t CO2 eq) 21.25% 27.39% 29.59% 32.93%

Operating GHG (t CO2 eq) – – – –
Maintenance GHG (t CO2 eq) – – – –
End-of-life GHG (t CO2 eq) 41.67% 35.71% 37.50% 42.86%
Life cycle GHG (t CO2 eq) 7.70% 8.53% 9.01% 8.62%
402 Y. Song et al. / Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404

Fig. 3. Life cycle energy consumption with different structure.

Fig. 4. Life cycle energy consumption.

operating energy. However, the difference in operating energy of
different assemblies is very small.
Meanwhile, the construction energy of base assembly con-
structed predominantly of metals is much more than that of others,
as shown in Fig. 5. In Proposal 2, the volume of aluminum is only
10% of timber while its construction energy is 1.4 times more than
timber.
If the metal cladding materials in the four wall assemblies are
all replaced with timber boards of 20 mm, the life cycle perfor-
mance is recalculated as shown in Table 11. The life cycle energy and

Table 11
Decline in life cycle energy and GHG emissions with timber cladding.

Base assembly Proposal 1 Proposal 2

Construction energy (GJ) 414.01 34.65% 94.83 9.86% 54.08 5.98%

Operating energy (GJ) 26.55 7.41% 45.30 12.97% 5.25 1.56%
Maintenance energy (GJ) 6.54 6.91% 4.81 5.46% 12.50 16.21%
End-of-life energy (GJ) 0.55 8.86% 1.22 17.11% 0.68 10.18%
Life cycle energy (GJ) 447.65 27.06% 146.16 10.39% 72.51 5.48%

Construction GHG (t CO2 eq) 29.46 39.87% 8.86 15.46% 4.92 9.27%
Operating GHG (t CO2 eq) 9.29 7.40% 15.86 12.97% 1.84 1.57%
Maintenance GHG (t CO2 eq) 0.41 6.83% 0.33 5.74% 0.85 17.17%
End-of-life GHG (t CO2 eq) 0.03 8.33% 0.07 16.67% 0.04 10.00%
Life cycle GHG (t CO2 eq) 39.19 19.05% 25.12 13.53% 7.65 4.35%
 Y. Song et al. / Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404 403

Fig. 5. Construction energy composition of different wall assemblies.

Fig. 6. Energy consumption of three wall assemblies.

greenhouse gas emission of Base assembly are reduced up to 27%
(447.65 GJ) and 19% (39.19 t CO2 eq), and those of Proposal 1 will
decrease by 10% and 14% respectively. For Proposal 2, while the con-
struction energy will be reduced by 54.08 GJ, operating energy (less
5.85 GJ), maintenance energy (less 12.50 GJ) and end-of-life energy
(less 0.68 GJ) are reduced as well (Fig. 5). The life cycle energy of Pro-
posal 2 with timber boards will decrease by roughly 5.5% (73.11 GJ),
even lower than Proposal 3, and its CO2 emissions will decrease by
4.5% (7.86 t CO2 eq) at the same time (Table 10). Therefore, Proposal
2 with timber boards would be the best design in both life cycle
impact and greenhouse gas emissions as shown in Fig. 6.
5.3. Air gap
The research also attempts to compare the differences in energy
consumption of four proposals with a 60 mm air gap. However,
while the results of the other three proposals remain the same, only
the operating energy and greenhouse gas emissions of base assem-
bly could be reduced by 3 GJ (1%) and 1.05 t CO2 eq (1%), which is
also negligible to the life cycle performance.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, the life cycle energy of post-disaster temporary
housing is higher in comparison to low energy buildings due to
unique requirements. Although temporary housing is not a build-
ing type that is used widely, due to the need to produce in vast
numbers within a limited time, it is paramount to reduce their life
cycle energy. As discussed above, the following guidelines of struc-
ture and materials could be implemented in order to reduce life
cycle energy of these shelters.
404 Y. Song et al. / Energy and Buildings 128 (2016) 394–404
(1) Make use of recycled materials where possible to reduce the
construction energy consumption.
(2) Choose a light structural material that is low in construction
energy, such as light steel instead of aluminum, to reduce the
construction energy of the structure.
(3) Use a light wall cladding material such as timber (instead of
metal materials such as aluminum or light steel), to reduce con-
struction energy, maintenance energy and end-of-life energy of
the envelope.
(4) Introduce composite walls with air gaps and insulation to
ensure least operating energy with best physical performance.
But the type and thickness of air gaps and insulation should be
decided carefully to achieve the optimization.
Acknowledgement
The research is funded by China Scholarship Council (CSC) and
National Science & Technology Pillar Program during the Twelfth
Five-year Plan Period (2012BAJ16B03).
References
[1] P.-T. Chen, G.C. Yao, C. Yu, L.-F. Liu, W. Ju-Huey, C.-H. Huang, A comparison of
residents’ satisfaction with temporary housing – a case study of two
temporary housing types in southern Taiwan, J. Chin. Inst. Engrs. 37 (2014)
635–642.
[2] A. Bashawri, S. Garrity, K. Moodley, An overview of the design of disaster
relief shelters, Proc. Econ. Finance 18 (2014) 924–931.
[3] C.S. Hayles, An examination of decision making in post disaster housing
reconstruction, Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 1 (1) (2010) 103–122.
[4] D. Félix, J.M. Branco, A. Feio, Temporary housing after disasters: a state of the
art survey, Habitat Int. 40 (2013) 136–141.
[5] E. Quarantelli, General and particular observations on sheltering and housing
in American disasters, Disasters 6 (4) (1982) 277–281.
[6] J.Y. Wu, M.K. Lindell, Housing reconstruction after two major earthquakes –
the 1994 Northridge earthquake in the United States and the 1999 Chi-Chi
earthquake in Taiwan, Disasters 28 (1) (2004) 63–81.
[7] S.Q. Gan, H. Zhang, Modern construction technology and development of the
“micro emission future house”, Architect. Technol. 45 (2014) 933–936.
[8] H. Xia, J.X. Zhu, Thermal design of lightweight building envelope: built cases
of newbud light gauge composited building system, Architect. J. 01 (2014)
106–111.
[9] D.B. Crawley, L.K. Lawrie, F.C. Winkelmann, W.F. Buhl, Y.J. Huang, C.O.
Pedersen, R.K. Strand, R.J. Liesen, D.E. Fisher, M.J. Witte, Energyplus: creating a
new-generation building energy simulation program, Energy Build. 33 (4)
(2001) 319–331.
[10] MOC, Thermal Design Code for Civil Building, 1993.
[11] L. Feng, Z.-j. Qiu, X.-d. Peng, On the key factors influencing grid energy
efficiency, Energy Conserv. 2 (2013) 35–40.
[12] NPCSC, Urban and Rural Planning Law, 2008.
[13] MOC, Unified Standard for Reliability Design of Building Structures, 2001.
[14] K. Adalberth, Energy use during the life cycle of buildings – a method, Build.
Environ. 32 (4) (1997) 317–320.
[15] R. Fay, G. Treloar, U. Iyer-Raniga, Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case
study, Build. Res. Inform. 28 (1) (2000) 31–41.
[16] I.M. Johnstone, Energy and mass flows of housing – a model and example,
Build. Environ. 36 (2001) 27–41.
[17] N. Mithraratne, B. Vale, R. Vale, Sustainable Living: The Role of Whole Life
Costs and Values, Routledge, 2007.
[18] W.J. Gao, T. Ariyama, T. Ojima, A. Meier, Energy impacts of recycling
disassembly material in residential buildings, Energy Build. 33 (2001)
553–562.
[19] A. Chini, S. Bruening, Report 10-Deconstruction and Materials Reuse in the
United States, The Future of Sustainable Construction, 2003, pp. 14.
[20] M. Calkins, Materials for Sustainable Sites: A Complete Guide to the
Evaluation, Selection, and Use of Sustainable Construction Materials, John
Wiley & Sons, 2008.
[21] W. McDonough, M. Braungart, Cradle to cradle: Remaking the Way We Make
Things, MacMillan, 2010.
[22] L.H.M. Vefago, J. Avellaneda, Recycling concepts and the index of recyclability
for building materials, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 72 (2013) 127–135.
[23] C. Thormark, A low energy building in a life cycle – its embodied energy,
energy need for operation and recycling potential, Build. Environ. 37 (2002)
429–435.
[24] N. Mithraratne, B. Vale, Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses,
Build. Environ. 39 (2004) 483–492.
[25] B. Rossi, A.-F. Marique, S. Reiter, Life-cycle assessment of residential buildings
in three different European locations: case study, Build. Environ. 51 (2012)
402–407.
[26] P.L. Gaspar, A.L. Santos, Embodied energy on refurbishment vs. demolition – a
southern Europe case study, Energy Build. 87 (2015) 386–394.
[27] N. Huberman, D. Pearlmutter, A life-cycle energy analysis of building
materials in the Negev desert, Energy Build. 40 (5) (2008) 837–848.
[28] T. Chen, J. Burnett, C. Chau, Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential
building of Hong Kong, Energy 26 (2001) 323–340.