Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
In this study the lifecycle primary energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) implications of multi-storeybuilding versions with different structural frame materials as well as construction systems are analysedconsidering flows from the production, operation and end-of-life phases and the full natural resourceschains. The analysed building versions include conventional and modern construction systems withlight-frame timber, reinforced concrete-frame, massive timber frame, beam-and-column timber frameor modular timber frame structural systems and are designed to the energy efficiency level of thepassive house criteria. The results show that the lifecycle primary energy use and GHG emissions forthe reinforced concrete building system are higher than those for the timber-based building systems,due primarily to the lower production primary energy use and GHG emissions as well as greater amountof biomass residues when using wood-based materials. The operation primary energy use and GHGemission for the buildings are lower when heated with cogenerated district heating compared to whenheated with electric-based heat pump, showing the significance of heat supply choice. The findingsemphasize the importance of structural frame material choice and system-wide lifecycle perspective inreducing primary energy use and GHG emissions in the built environment.
Highlights
Synthesis of research presented by the IPCC (2014) indicates that timber-based building systems results in lower production energy than conventional concrete-based alternatives while concrete-based building systems entail lesser production energy than steel-based alternatives
The present study explores conventional and modern building systems designed to the Norwegian passive house criteria with reinforced concrete or timber structural frame materials
This study has explored the lifecycle primary energy and GHG implications of conventional and modern multi-storey building systems designed to the Norwegian passive house criteria with different structural frame materials
Summary
Lifecycle analysis considering the entire energy and material chains can play an important role in identifying options to reduce energy use and climate impacts of buildings. Ramesh et al (2010) reviewed lifecycle analysis studies of 73 conventional and low-energy buildings from 13 countries and noted the production phase to account for 10-20% of the buildings’ total lifecycle energy use. For a low-energy building, Thormark (2002) showed that the share of the total lifecycle energy used for production reaches about 45%. Tettey et al (2014) found that total production primary energy use is reduced 6-7% while CO2 emission is reduced 7-8%, when using an alternative insulation material to achieve the same energy performance for multi-storey buildings. Synthesis of research presented by the IPCC (2014) indicates that timber-based building systems results in lower production energy than conventional concrete-based alternatives while concrete-based building systems entail lesser production energy than steel-based alternatives. Suzuki et al (1995) calculated the carbon emissions for construction of wood-frame, lightweight steel-frame and reinforced concrete-frame buildings to be 250, 400 and 850 kg CO2/m2, respectively
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
