lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Effect of different frame materials on the primary energy use of a multi storey residential building in a life cycle perspective
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology. (Sustainable Built Environm Res Grp)
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology. (Sustainable Built Environm Res Grp)
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology. (Sustainable Built Environm Res Grp)
2019 (English)In: Energy and Buildings, ISSN 0378-7788, E-ISSN 1872-6178, Vol. 185, p. 259-271Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Primary energy implications over the life cycle of a multi storey residential building with different building systems are explored here. The main structural materials of the buildings include precast concrete, cross laminated timber (CLT) and prefabricated timber modules (modular). The analysis covers energy and material flows from different life cycle phases of the building versions, designed to meet the energy performance of the Swedish building code (BBR) and passive house criteria. The CLT and modular buildings were found to result in lower production primary energy use and higher biomass residues compared to the concrete alternative. The heating value of the recoverable biomass residues from the production phase of the CLT building is significantly larger than the primary energy required for its production. Primary energy use for production and construction constitutes 20-30% and 36-47% of the total primary energy use for production, construction, space heating, ventilation and demolition for the BBR and passive buildings, respectively. Space heating with combined heat and power (CHP) and ventilation electricity for the BBR and passive building versions form 70-79% and 52-63%, respectively, of the total primary energy use for production, construction, space heating, ventilation and demolition for a lifespan of 80 years. The CLT and modular buildings give 20-37% and 9-17% lower total life cycle primary energy use, respectively, than the concrete alternative when space heating is from CHP. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2019. Vol. 185, p. 259-271
Keywords [en]
Life cycle, Primary energy use, Residential buildings, Cross laminated timber, Timber modules, Concrete, Structural frame
National Category
Building Technologies
Research subject
Technology (byts ev till Engineering), Civil engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-81093DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.12.017ISI: 000459358900021Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85059911195OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-81093DiVA, id: diva2:1296427
Available from: 2019-03-15 Created: 2019-03-15 Last updated: 2019-08-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Tettey, Uniben Yao AyikoeDodoo, AmbroseGustavsson, Leif

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Tettey, Uniben Yao AyikoeDodoo, AmbroseGustavsson, Leif
By organisation
Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology
In the same journal
Energy and Buildings
Building Technologies

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 28 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf