Richard Bergman

Dr. Richard Bergman

USDA Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI 53726-2398,USA
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

23Years (2004-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 February 2019 in Applied Energy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KSKamalakanta Sahoo
Kamalakanta Sahoo
EBEdward Bilek
Edward Bilek
RBRichard Bergman
Richard Bergman
SMSudhagar Mani
Sudhagar Mani

20 November 2020 in The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KSKamalakanta Sahoo
Kamalakanta Sahoo
AUAmit Upadhyay
Amit Upadhyay
TRTroy Runge
Troy Runge
RBRichard Bergman
Richard Bergman
MPMaureen Puettmann
Maureen Puettmann
EBEdward Bilek
Edward Bilek

20 July 2018 in Wood and Fiber Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
HGHongmei Gu
Hongmei Gu
RBRichard Bergman
Richard Bergman
NANathaniel Anderson
Nathaniel Anderson
SASevda Alanya-Rosenbaum
Sevda Alanya-Rosenbaum
LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF ACTIVATED CARBON FROM WOODY BIOMASS

9 June 2020 in Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ZCZhongjia Chen
Zhongjia Chen
HGHongmei Gu
Hongmei Gu
RBRichard Bergman
Richard Bergman
SLShaobo Liang
Shaobo Liang
Buildings consume large amounts of materials and energy, making them one of the highest environmental impactors. Quantifying the impact of building materials can be critical to developing an effective greenhouse gas mitigation strategy. Using Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings (IE4B), this paper compares cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessment (LCA) results for a 12-story building constructed from cross-laminated timber (CLT) and a functionally equivalent reinforced concrete (RC) building. Following EN 15978 framework, environmental impacts for stages A1–A5 (product to construction), B2, B4, and B6 (use), C1–C4 (end of life), and D (beyond the building life) were evaluated in detail along resource efficiency. For material resource efficiency, total mass of the CLT building was 33.2% less than the alternative RC building. For modules A to C and not considering operational energy use (B6), LCA results show a 20.6% reduction in embodied carbon achieved for the CLT building, compared to the RC building. For modules A to D and not considering B6, the embodied carbon assessment revealed that for the CLT building, 6.57 × 105 kg CO2 eq was emitted, whereas for the equivalent RC building, 2.16 × 106 kg CO2 eq was emitted, and emissions from CLT building was 70% lower than that from RC building. Additionally, 1.84 × 106 kg of CO2 eq was stored in the wood material used in the CLT building during its lifetime. Building material selection should be considered for the urgent need to reduce global climate change impacts.

1 December 2014 in Forest Products Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RBRichard Bergman
Richard Bergman
MPMaureen Puettmann
Maureen Puettmann
ATAdam Taylor
Adam Taylor
KSKenneth E. Skog
Kenneth E. Skog
Wood products have many environmental advantages over nonwood alternatives. Documenting and publicizing these merits helps the future competitiveness of wood when climate change impacts are being considered. The manufacture of wood products requires less fossil fuel than nonwood alternative building materials such as concrete, metals, or plastics. By nature, wood is composed of carbon that is captured from the atmosphere during tree growth. These two effects—substitution and sequestration—are why the carbon impact of wood products is favorable. This article shows greenhouse gas emission savings for a range of wood products by comparing (1) net wood product carbon emissions from forest cradle–to–mill output gate minus carbon storage over product use life with (2) cradle-to-gate carbon emissions for substitute nonwood products. The study assumes sustainable forest management practices will be used for the duration of the time for the forest to regrow completely from when the wood was removed for product production during harvesting. The article describes how the carbon impact factors were developed for wood products such as framing lumber, flooring, moulding, and utility poles. Estimates of carbon emissions saved per unit of wood product used are based on the following: (1) gross carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from wood product production, (2) CO2 from biofuels combusted and used for energy during manufacturing, (3) carbon stored in the final product, and (4) fossil CO2 emissions from the production of nonwood alternatives. The results show notable carbon emissions savings when wood products are used in constructing buildings in place of nonwood alternatives.

23 March 2023 in Bioresource Technology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
NRNaveenkumar Rajendran
Naveenkumar Rajendran
TRTroy Runge
Troy Runge
RBRichard Bergman
Richard Bergman
Prakash NepalPrakash Nepal
Prakash Nepal
CHCarl Houtman
Carl Houtman