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
Lifecycle primary energy analysis of low-energy timber building systems for multi-story residential buildings
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology. (SBER)
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology. (SBER)
Linnaeus University, Faculty of Technology, Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology. (SBER)
2014 (English)In: Energy and Buildings, ISSN 0378-7788, E-ISSN 1872-6178, Vol. 81, p. 84-97Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

A system-wide lifecycle approach is used here to explore the primary energy implications of three timber building systems for a multi-storey building designed to a high energy-efficiency level. The three building systems are: cross laminated timber, beam -and-column, and modular prefabricated systems. The analysis considers the energy and material flows in the production, use and post-use lifecycle stages of the buildings. The effects of insulation material options and the contribution of different building elements to the production energy for the buildings are explored. The results show that external and internal walls account for the biggest share of the production energy for all building systems and its contribution is comparable for the different systems. In contrast, there is significant variation in the production primary energy for the roof-ceilings and intermediate floor-ceilings for the different building systems. Overall, the cross laminated timber building system gives the lowest lifecycle primary energy balance, as this building is insulated with stone wool and has better airtightness in contrast to the other building systems which are insulated with glass wool and have lower airtightness performance. With improved airtightness and insulation substitution, the total primary energy use for the beam-and-column and modular building systems can be reduced by 7% and 9%, respectively.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 81, p. 84-97
National Category
Civil Engineering
Research subject
Technology (byts ev till Engineering), Bioenergy Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-34739DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.06.003ISI: 000343363700009Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84903780205OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-34739DiVA, id: diva2:722284
Available from: 2014-06-06 Created: 2014-06-06 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Dodoo, AmbroseGustavsson, LeifSathre, Roger

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Dodoo, AmbroseGustavsson, LeifSathre, Roger
By organisation
Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology
In the same journal
Energy and Buildings
Civil Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 374 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