COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE THERMAL EFFICIENCY AND CARBON FOOTPRINT OF MODERN ENVELOPE MATERIALS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31650/2786-6696-2026-17-55-64Keywords:
energy efficiency, envelope structures, embodied carbon, thermal efficiency, building materials, LCA, construction decarbonization.Abstract
The modern construction sector remains one of the largest consumers of energy resources and a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. Due to the increasing requirements for building energy efficiency and the need for decarbonization of the construction industry, the selection of envelope materials capable of providing not only high thermal protection but also minimal environmental impact throughout the entire life cycle has become especially relevant. Under current conditions, the assessment of materials can no longer be based solely on thermal conductivity, as approaches related to embodied carbon and operational emissions of buildings are becoming increasingly widespread.
The purpose of this article is to provide a comparative assessment of the thermal efficiency and carbon footprint of modern envelope materials in order to determine their suitability for energy-efficient and low-carbon construction. The study analyzes mineral wool, polystyrene foam, aerated concrete, ceramic blocks, CLT structures, SIP panels, and bio-based materials. The research was carried out using comparative analysis, thermal engineering calculations, and the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology. The study considered thermal conductivity, thermal resistance, durability, embodied carbon levels, and the influence of materials on reducing the operational energy consumption of buildings. The regulatory framework of the study was based on the provisions of DBN V.2.6-31:2021 concerning the energy efficiency of buildings.
The analysis revealed that the lowest thermal conductivity values are characteristic of polymer insulation materials and mineral wool, which provide a high level of thermal protection with relatively small layer thicknesses. At the same time, these materials differ significantly in terms of carbon impact due to the specifics of production processes and the origin of raw materials. It was determined that wood-based materials and biocomposites have the lowest carbon footprint because of the use of renewable raw materials and their ability to store biogenic carbon. Aerated concrete and ceramic blocks demonstrate stable durability and structural reliability; however, to meet modern thermal protection standards, they require combination with effective insulation materials.
The results indicate that the assessment of envelope materials cannot be limited only to thermal conductivity. For example, an aerated concrete wall with an additional insulation layer may provide a better balance between thermal protection, durability, and fire safety than a single-layer structure. Similarly, CLT systems combined with bio-based insulation are characterized by lower embodied carbon levels but require additional moisture protection and careful detailing of joints and connections. It was established that the most balanced solution in terms of energy efficiency, durability, and environmental performance is represented by combined structural systems, particularly the combination of aerated concrete with mineral wool insulation.
The obtained results confirm that the assessment of modern envelope materials should be based on a comprehensive approach that considers not only thermal properties but also carbon footprint, durability, reuses potential, and the impact of materials on the operational energy consumption of buildings. A promising direction for the development of energy-efficient construction is the implementation of low-carbon and bio-based materials combined with optimized structural solutions and modern approaches to the life cycle assessment of construction products.
References
[1] F. Pomponi and A. Moncaster, "Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment – What does the evidence say?", Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 181, pp. 687–700, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036.
[2] F. Pomponi and C. De Wolf, "Embodied Carbon in Buildings: Measurement, Management, and Mitigation", Springer Nature, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72796-7.
[3] A. M. Moncaster, F. N. Rasmussen, T. Malmqvist, A. Houlihan Wiberg, and H. Birgisdottir, "Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multi-national quantitative and qualitative case studies", Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 235, pp. 378–393, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.233.
[4] M. Röck, M. R. M. Saade, M. Balouktsi et al., "Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation", Applied Energy, vol. 258, 114107, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107.
[5] L. F. Cabeza, L. Rincón, V. Vilariño, G. Pérez, and A. Castell, "Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 29, pp. 394–416, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.037.
[6] F. Asdrubali, F. D’Alessandro, and S. Schiavoni, "A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials", Sustainable Materials and Technologies, vol. 4, pp. 1–17, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2015.05.002.
[7] Ye. Fareniuk and H. Fareniuk, "Metodychni osnovy novoho pokolinnia budivelnykh norm z enerhoefektyvnosti budivel", Nauka ta budivnytstvo, no. 3(33–34), 2023. https://doi.org/10.33644/2313-6679-34-2022-2.
[8] V. Deshko, I. Bilous, and I. Sukhodub, "Evaluation of energy use for heating in residential building under the influence of air exchange modes", Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 42, 103020, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103020.
[9] S. Füchsl, F. Rheude, and H. Röder, "Life cycle assessment (LCA) of thermal insulation materials: A critical review", Cleaner Materials, vol. 5, 100119, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100119.
[10] N. Llantoy, M. Chàfer, and L. F. Cabeza, "A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of different insulation materials for buildings in the continental Mediterranean climate", Energy and Buildings, vol. 225, 110323, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110323.
[11] N. P. Zade, P. Sarkar, and R. Davis, "Life cycle energy of AAC masonry infilled residential building in India", Energy Efficiency, vol. 17, no. 9, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-024-10188-y.
[12] A. Hamza and I. Kocserha, "Reducing energy consumption and CO₂ emissions in ceramic brick production with diatomaceous earth", Construction and Building Materials, vol. 515, 145650, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2026.145650.
[13] F. Pierobon, M. Huang, K. Simonen, and I. Ganguly, "Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: An LCA based comparative case study in the U.S. Pacific Northwest", Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 26, 100862, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100862.
[14] A. A. Dani, R. Feng, Z. Fang, and K. Roy, "Life Cycle Assessment of a Structural Insulated Panel Modular House in New Zealand", Buildings, vol. 15, no. 1, 146, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15010146.
[15] ISO 14040:2006. Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2006.
[16] EN 15804:2012+A2:2019. Sustainability of construction works – Environmental product declarations – Core rules for the product category of construction products. Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization, 2019.
[17] DBN V.2.6-31:2021. Teplova izoliatsiia ta enerhoefektyvnist budivel. Kyiv, Ukraine: Ministerstvo rozvytku hromad ta terytorii Ukrainy, 2022.
[18] G. Churkina, A. Organschi, C. P. O. Reyer et al., "Buildings as a global carbon sink", Nature Sustainability, vol. 3, pp. 269–276, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4.
[19] M. Sandanayake, G. Zhang, and S. Setunge, "Estimation of environmental emissions and impacts of building construction – A decision making tool for contractors", Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 21, pp. 173–185, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.10.023.
[20] M. Kuittinen and T. Häkkinen, "Reduced carbon footprints of buildings: New Finnish standards and assessments", Buildings, vol. 10, no. 10, 182, 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10100182.
[21] A. Sharma, A. Saxena, M. Sethi, V. Shree, and Varun, "Life cycle assessment of buildings: A review", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 871–875, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.008.
[22] F. Pittau, F. Krause, G. Lumia, and G. Habert, "Fast-growing bio-based materials as an opportunity for storing carbon in exterior walls", Building and Environment, vol. 129, pp. 117–129, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.12.006.
[23] Climate Change 2022. Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 MODERN CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECTURE
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
