Accepted Manuscript

Effect of different frame materials on the primary energy use of a

multi storey residential building in a life cycle perspective

Uniben Y.A. Tettey , Ambrose Dodoo , Leif Gustavsson

PII: S0378-7788(18)30674-1
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.12.017
Reference: ENB 8946

To appear in: Energy & Buildings

Received date: 28 February 2018

Revised date: 17 November 2018
Accepted date: 17 December 2018

Please cite this article as: Uniben Y.A. Tettey , Ambrose Dodoo , Leif Gustavsson , Effect of different
frame materials on the primary energy use of a multi storey residential building in a life cycle perspective,
Energy & Buildings (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.12.017

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 Lifecycle primary energy use of concrete and timber building systems are analysed.
 We compared functionally equivalent buildings with varying energy performance.
 Timber buildings gave lower production primary energy and higher biomass residues.
 Timber buildings gave lower total life cycle primary energy balance than concrete.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 470 768735; fax: +46 470 768540; E-mail address: uniben.tettey@lnu.se
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Effect of different frame materials on the primary energy use of a

multi storey residential building in a life cycle perspective

Uniben Y.A. Tettey*, Ambrose Dodoo and Leif Gustavsson

Sustainable Built Environment Research Group
Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology
Linnaeus University, 35195 Växjö, Sweden

T
Abstract

IP
The 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

CR
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

US
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
AN
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.
M

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
ED

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
PT

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
CE

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.
AC

Keywords: life cycle, primary energy use, residential buildings, cross laminated timber,
timber modules, concrete, structural frame

1. Introduction

Fossil fuels currently dominate the global primary energy mix with a share of 81% [1]. Still,
the share of fossil fuels is expected to be significant at 79% and 74% according to the
International Energy Agency’s (IEA) current and new policies scenarios, respectively by 2040
[1]. The construction, operation and end-of-life activities of buildings are associated with

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

large use of energy and material resources. About 60% of the world’s total raw materials
mining is linked to civil works and building construction activities [2]. The operation energy
of conventional buildings constitutes a significant share of their life cycle energy use. In the
European Union (EU-28) and in Sweden, about 38% of the total final energy use was from the
residential and service sectors in 2014 [3, 4], with space heating accounting for over 60% of
the total share in most EU countries [5]. The management of construction and end-of-life
building material waste and residues is integral to efforts in minimising the life cycle primary
energy and climate implications of buildings, and essential for the transition to a sustainable

T
society. As part of strategies towards a resource efficient Europe, better construction and use

IP
of buildings are expected to impact 42% of final energy use, 35% of greenhouse gas

CR
emissions and more than 50% of all extracted materials in the EU [6]. This would require
significant improvements in energy and materials resource use over the life cycle of buildings,
including the use of sustainable materials, improved design and higher material recycling [6].

US
Space conditioning energy use during the operation phase of a building largely depends on the
building’s construction and thermal performance characteristics. Thus, efforts to minimise
AN
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of buildings have mainly targeted this phase.
However, as operation energy is minimised to achieve low energy buildings, the relative
M

importance of the production phase becomes significant [7-10]. Gustavsson and Joelsson [11]
showed that the production primary energy use for a conventional and low energy building
ED

could constitute up to 45% and 60%, respectively, of the total life cycle primary energy use,
depending on the building’s energy supply system. In a recent review of building life cycle
analyses, Chastas et al. [12] reported the share of production primary energy use to range
PT

between 26-57% and 74-100% of the total life cycle primary energy use for low energy and
nearly zero energy buildings, respectively.
CE

Buildings represent a complex system and combination of different parts, consisting of a

variety of materials to deliver specific functions [13, 14]. Different materials may be used to
AC

achieve similar functions over the life cycle of a building, however the related primary energy
and climate implications may vary significantly [8]. Various studies have compared the
implications of different materials over the life cycle of buildings. The life cycle energy use
and environmental impacts of various building envelope components have been analysed in
different contexts [15-18]. Saiz et al. [19] evaluated the effect of 3 different roofing systems: a
common flat roof, a white roof and a green roof on the life cycle environmental impact of a
multi-storey residential building in Spain and found that the green roof gave an annual energy

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

saving of about 1% and summer cooling load reduction of 6%. Lippke and Edmonds [20]
analysed environmental burdens associated with various materials used in the construction of
wall and floor components of residential buildings in the United States, considering net
resource use, fossil fuel energy use, global warming potential, air and water pollution, as well
as solid wastes. They found that wood-based materials consistently resulted in significant
reduction in most of the considered environmental burdens compared to steel and concrete
alternatives. Su et al. [21] proposed a life cycle inventory analysis model and applied it in to
assess the life cycle performance of eight different insulation materials, taking into account

T
uncertainties related to data and physical properties of the insulation materials.

IP
Some other life cycle analyses have focused on implications of the choice of building frame

CR
materials. Gong et al. [22] analysed the life cycle primary energy use and carbon emissions of
a residential building in Beijing, China with frame constructions in concrete, light-gauge steel,

US
and light frame wood. They showed that the life cycle primary energy use of the concrete and
steel frame constructions are similar and about 30% higher than that of the light frame wood
construction. Skullestad et al. [23] performed a comparative life cycle analysis of the
AN
environmental impacts of identical buildings with varying floor heights, constructed in
reinforced concrete or timber frame structures, based on different sets of assumptions and
M

scenarios. They found that the buildings with timber frame structures give lower
environmental impacts than the alternatives with concrete frame structures for all the
ED

considered approaches and scenarios. Takano et al. [24] investigated the effect of material
selection in 3 categories, namely structural frame, surface components and inner components
on the life cycle primary energy use of hypothetical building models in Finland. Their results
PT

showed that the impact of the different materials is more notable in the production and end-of-
life phases, with the choice of structural materials giving the largest impact compared to the
CE

other categories. Dimoudi and Tompa [25] studied energy and environmental indicators in
terms of embodied energy and equivalent CO2 and SO2 emissions associated with different
AC

construction materials based on two typical multi-storey office buildings with reinforced
concrete frames in Greece. They showed that the embodied energy of the buildings’ frame
materials (concrete and reinforcement steel) forms the largest part of the total embodied
energy, while the floor slabs and external walls give the biggest contribution to the embodied
energy for the construction and envelope elements of the buildings, respectively. The above
studies emphasise the importance of the choice of frame materials on production energy use,
especially for low energy buildings. However most of them focused on conventional concrete

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and timber frame buildings or hypothetical building models. Comparative life cycle studies
show significant benefits in terms of primary energy use and carbon emissions for timber
frame buildings compared to identical concrete versions [26-28]. In view of the potential
climate and environmental benefits of wood construction materials, innovative timber
building systems for multi-storey structures are emerging, including cross laminated timber
(CLT) and prefabricated modular timber building systems. The potential life cycle primary
energy use and carbon implications of such timber building systems have been explored in a
few studies [27, 29, 30], mostly in comparison with conventional timber constructions. Other

T
studies have also focused on variations of specific frame materials and floor designs. For

IP
example, Chiniforush et al. [31] compared the life cycle energy implications of concrete and

CR
steel buildings with different floor and shear wall designs. The floor designs for the steel
structures included steel-timber and steel-concrete composite systems, while the shear wall
designs were based on concrete or cross laminated timber (CLT) systems. They found that the

US
steel building with steel-timber floor systems and CLT shear walls give considerable life
cycle energy savings compared to the concrete building alternatives. Robati et al. [32]
AN
assessed the effects of different concrete materials (normal weight or ultra-lightweight
concrete) and floor designs (flat or waffle slab) on the energy performance and indoor thermal
M

comfort of an Australian office building. They found that the energy performance of the
building is influenced by structural materials and slab types as well as the thermal mass of
concrete construction. Apart from production and end-of-life energy use, choice of building
ED

frame materials may also influence operation energy use depending on the thermal mass
effectiveness of the materials and climate location. Earlier studies found the influence of
PT

thermal mass to be small for buildings located in cold climates [33, 34]. Still, such dynamics
may be accounted for in the life cycle energy comparison of buildings with different frames
CE

such as concrete and timber alternatives.

Despite the reported benefits associated with wood-based building frame materials, still their
AC

adoption for multi storey buildings is slow due to varying factors [35-37]. This study seeks to
contribute to increased understanding of the primary energy and climate implications of
different building frame materials to enable informed material choices that could give
significant climate benefits over the entire life cycle of buildings. In particular, the primary
energy use implications of a multi storey residential building with different building frame
systems are analysed in a life cycle perspective. The analysed building systems include
precast concrete frame (concrete) system and timber frame building systems based on cross

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

laminated timber (CLT) and prefabricated timber modules (modular). The scope of the
analysis encompasses the entire energy and material flows related to the life cycle phases of
each building system, including material production, transportation, building construction,
operation and end-of-life. The operation energy performance of the analysed building systems
is based on the Swedish building code (BBR 2015) and passive house criteria. In addition, the
potential benefits of thermal mass are taken into account for the different building systems to
achieve functionally equivalent alternatives in terms of operation energy use. A precast
concrete frame building, constructed in 2014 in Växjö, Sweden (latitude 56°87′37″N;

T
longitude 14°48′33″E) was analysed and redesigned for the functionally equivalent timber

IP
frame building systems.

CR
2. Studied building systems

The analysed building systems are based on the precast concrete frame building as reference.

US
From the architectural layout and thermal characteristics of the reference concrete building,
two functionally equivalent alternatives are designed with CLT panel elements and
AN
prefabricated timber modules as the main structural frame materials. The building systems
have been designed in collaboration with the respective Swedish companies which produce
them and the architectural and structural designs follow mandatory provisions and general
M

recommendations in the Swedish building code (BBR) and European construction standards
(Eurocodes) [38]. The buildings are designed for wind terrain category III with basic wind
ED

velocity of 24 m/s and snow zone 2 with characteristic snow load of 2.0 kN/m2. The dead
loads were estimated from the self-weight of the structural elements based on their geometries
PT

and material densities. An additional allowance of 2.3 kN/m2 is assumed to account for inner
walls, partitions, flooring, insulation and other finishes. The analysed buildings fall under
CE

usage category A and a live load of 2.0 kN/m2 is assumed for the floors and roof. Concrete
classes of C35/45 and C30/37 according to [39] have been assumed for the superstructure and
foundation, respectively, while the CLT and modular timber elements are taken to be of
AC

strength class C24 [40]. Steel reinforcement of grade B 500 BT with characteristic yield
strength of 500 MPa is assumed and concrete covers for the reinforcement are taken to be 30
and 50 mm for the superstructure and foundation, respectively.

The foundation of the concrete building comprises layers of 200 mm crushed stones, 300 mm
expanded polystyrene (EPS) insulation and 100 mm ground floor concrete slab. The
foundation details of the timber frame buildings are similar to that of the concrete alternative,
except that they are redesigned taking into account the lighter weight of the timber building

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

systems. The buildings are each 6 storeys high and have a total of 24 apartments, comprising
1-3 rooms with a total heated floor area of 1686 m2. The windows and external doors have
clear glass panels with wood frames, clad with aluminium profiles on the outside. Double-
glazed window units with U-values of 1.2 W/m2K and triple-glazed units with U-values of 0.8
W/m2K are assumed for the buildings to the BBR 2015 and passive criteria, respectively. The
west façade has the largest window area of 161 m2, followed by the east façade with window
area of 75 m2. The north and south façades have the least share of window areas of about 39
m2 each. The floor plan and section of the concrete building are shown in Figure 1, while the

T
main differences in the structural frames of the studied building systems are described below.

IP
CR
Figure 1 about here

2.1. Precast concrete frame building US

AN
The concrete building has outer walls with a layer of EPS insulation sandwiched between
precast concrete panel elements. The inner walls are made of load-bearing concrete wall
panels and non-load-bearing walls of plasterboard layers with steel studs spaced at 600 mm
M

and air gaps of 95–145 mm between them. The intermediate floors are concrete slabs with
laminated wood floor covering, while the ceiling floor consists of a concrete slab and loose
ED

fill stone wool insulation with wooden trusses and a roof covering over layers of asphalt-
impregnated felt.
PT

2.2. Cross laminated timber (CLT) frame building

The framing of the CLT building for the outer and inner walls as well as the intermediate and
CE

ceiling floors has CLT panel elements as the main structural components. The outer walls
consist of a ventilated façade plaster on the outside with layers of stone wool insulation
AC

between timber studs and CLT panel elements clad with gypsum boards on the inside. The
inner load-bearing walls have CLT panels clad with gypsum boards on both sides while the
non-load-bearing walls are made up of layers of plasterboard with timber studs spaced at 600
mm and air gaps of 95-145 mm between them. The intermediate floors consist of laminated
wood floor covering, CLT panel and glulam beam elements with stone wool insulation and
gypsum board as the bottom cover. In addition to this, the ceiling floor has loose stone wool
insulation with wooden trusses and a roof covering over layers of asphalt-impregnated felt.

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.3. Prefabricated timber modules (modular) frame building

The modular building system is made up of individual light-frame timber volumetric

elements, produced at the manufacturing factory and delivered to be assembled on the
construction site. The outer wall elements include ventilated façade plaster on the outside,
load-bearing timber stud walls with layers of glass wool insulation between timber studs and
gypsum boards on the inside. The inner load-bearing walls are also made up of timber stud
elements clad with gypsum boards on both sides, while the non-load-bearing walls are made

T
up of layers of plasterboard with timber studs spaced at 600 mm and air gaps of 95-145 mm

IP
between them. The intermediate floors consist of laminated wood floor covering over particle
board elements, glulam beam elements with glass wool insulation and plywood as the bottom

CR
cover. In addition to this, the ceiling floor has loose stone wool insulation with wooden
trusses and a roof covering over layers of asphalt-impregnated felt.

US
The construction details of the external envelope elements of the studied building systems to
the BBR standard and passive criteria are shown in Figures 2 - 5. Typically, large amounts of
AN
insulation are required for external building envelope elements to achieve thermal
performance requirements of the Swedish building codes [41, 42].
M

Figure 2 about here

ED

Figure 3 about here

PT

Figure 4 about here

CE
AC

Figure 5 about here2.4. Energy efficiency standards

Versions of the three building systems modelled to the Swedish building code, BBR 2015
[41] and Swedish passive house criteria [43] are analysed in this study. Both the BBR
standard and passive criteria define maximum limits for specific energy use for operation of
buildings per heated floor area, including space heating, tap water heating and electricity for
ventilation but excluding electricity for household appliances and lighting. The specific final
energy use varies with climate zones and whether the building has an electric or non-electric

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

heat supply. For the analysed buildings, located in climate zone 3 in Southern Sweden and
with district heat supply the specific operation energy use must not exceed 80 and 50 kWh/m2
year according to the BBR and passive criteria, respectively. To achieve the same thermal
performance for the analysed building alternatives to the requirements of the BBR and passive
criteria, the various envelope elements of the building systems are modelled with appropriate
component thicknesses as shown in Figures 2 - 5. Hence, all three analysed building
alternatives are modelled to achieve the same operation energy use under the BBR standard or
passive criteria. The modelled thermal characteristics of the building systems to meet the

T
BBR standard and passive house criteria are given in Table 1.

IP
CR
Table 1 about here

3. Methodological approach US
AN
The methodological approach is based on a comparative analysis of the energy and material
flows associated with the different life cycle phases of the analysed building systems using a
system analysis perspective. Variations in system boundaries affect the validity and
M

interpretation of life cycle assessment (LCA) results [14]. According to the normative
standard on assessment of environmental performance of buildings [44], the system boundary
ED

of the analysis encompasses material production (module A1-A3), building construction

(module A4-A5), operation energy use (module B6), end-of-life (module C1-C4) as well as
PT

the benefits and loads associated with the end-of-life management of demolished materials
(module D). In this study, we consider both final and primary energy use. Final energy
CE

denotes the energy use at a final point of use or output while primary energy refers to the
energy use required to generate the final energy service, including inputs and losses along the
whole energy supply chain.
AC

3.1. Material production and building construction

Over the production phase, the primary energy use to extract, process, manufacture and
transport the materials required for the construction of the different building systems as well
as the primary energy use for on-site construction are considered. The analysis began with an
inventory of the various materials required to construct the buildings based on drawings and
information from companies involved in the design and construction of the building systems.
The analysis covers the complete materials and energy chains, and takes into account material
9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

losses as well as efficiencies of fuel cycles and conversion and distribution of energy systems.
The primary energy use for material production was estimated based on methodology and
data presented by Gustavsson et al. [45]. The methodology calculates the primary energy
balance for material production, taking into account the energy used in material production as
well as biomass by-products and residues generated over the production and construction
phases. Variability in life cycle inventory (LCI) data may be due to different physical
processes for production of similar materials, different production technologies and fuel
inputs among others. The quality of LCI data is essential in the validity of life cycle analysis,

T
and adequate data must be used for results to be representative [14]. Data sources for LCA

IP
studies include environmental product declarations (EPDs), industrial process analyses and

CR
various LCI databases such as Ecoinvent. EPDs are suggested to be produced in accordance
with EN 15804, however such datasets are currently lacking, especially for building and
construction products [46]. Datasets from the Ecoinvent database [47] have been used for

US
some LCA studies of buildings e.g. [23, 24, 30, 48]. The Ecoinvent dataset is generic and
expressed as specific total cumulative energy demand (CED) for materials based on average
AN
data for currently available technology. Moreover, the Ecoinvent data does not clearly
distinguish the embodied energy (energy content) from the cumulative energy demand for
M

materials as stipulated in EN 15804 [46] and also includes carbon stored in materials in their
carbon footprint. However, stored carbon in building materials is not released as emissions
into the atmosphere and has no climate impact. In this study, data for specific final energy use
ED

for production of the various materials are based on production process analyses from
Björklund and Tillman [49], which is representative of the Swedish building materials
PT

industries. Table 2 shows specific final energy use for production of some major materials in
the analysed buildings. The specific final energy use for production includes energy use to
CE

extract, process, manufacture and transport the materials, assuming an average transportation
distance of 300 km based on Björklund and Tillman [49]. Fuel cycle efficiencies for fossil
AC

fuel energy inputs of 90%, 95% and 95% are assumed for coal, oil and natural gas,
respectively based on Gustavsson and Sathre [50]. The assumed efficiencies and fuel inputs
for electricity generation may influence the primary energy for building material production.
Olkkonen and Syri [51] analysed temporal and spatial variations in electricity generation in
the Nordic and EU systems and concluded that the marginal generation unit is dominated by
coal, followed by fossil gas plants with the share of biomass expected to increase. In this
study, electricity for material production is assumed to be generated in a stand-alone biomass
steam turbine (BST) plant with conversion efficiency of 40% and transmission and

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

distribution losses of 2%. The primary energy use for on-site construction activities of
buildings may vary depending on the design and construction system among other factors.
Typically, buildings with heavy frame materials such as concrete would require more energy
to erect than those with lighter frame materials like steel and wood [31, 52]. Adalberth et al.
[53] estimated the construction energy of a 4 storey concrete building in Sweden to be twice
that of a functionally equivalent wood option. Gustavsson et al. [26] estimated the on-site
construction primary energy use of an 8 storey massive wood frame building in Sweden to be
80 kWh/m2, comprising 50% electricity and 50% diesel fuel. Due to data constraints for the

T
on-site energy for construction of the studied building systems, we apply this value for the

IP
wood building systems to the BBR standard and assume that it is doubled for the concrete

CR
building system to the BBR standard based on [33, 54]. The primary energy use for on-site
construction of the passive building systems is estimated to be proportionally equal to that of
the respective BBR alternatives, weighted by their relative amounts of primary energy for
material production.
US
Table 2 about here
AN

Different types of biomass residues are recoverable over the life cycle of wood-based building
M

materials or products. The quantities of these residues are mainly linked to the amount of
wood-based materials or products required for the completed buildings. In this study, biomass
ED

residues from forest harvest, wood material processing and building construction activities are
assumed to be used as bioenergy as this is a common practice in Sweden [55]. The quantities
PT

of available biomass residues are calculated based on Gustavsson et al. [45] and by applying
biomass expansion factors of 53% of the total tree biomass in stem wood under bark, 5% in
CE

bark, 14% in branches, 6% in foliage, and 22% in stumps and coarse roots based on Lehtonen
et al. [56]. The recovery percentages and characteristics of the different biomass residues are
AC

given in Table 3. The energy content of the available biomass residues are based on lower
heating value and estimated taking into account the fossil fuel energy to recover and transport
the residues. It is assumed that particleboard is produced from processing residues from
lumber production.
Table 3 about here

3.2. Operation final and primary energy use

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The annual final energy for operation of the building systems, including space heating, tap
water heating, ventilation electricity and household and facility electricity was calculated
using the VIP-Energy simulation software (version 4.0.5) [57]. VIP-Energy is a whole
building energy software for dynamic hourly energy balance calculations and takes into
account interactions between thermal characteristics of building envelope, climate conditions,
heating and ventilation systems as well as different building occupancy and operation
schedules. The energy balance calculations for the analysed building systems were performed
with the 2013 climate data for Växjö, representing a recent climate for the building location.

T
The analyses consider the effect of thermal mass due to the different frame materials of the

IP
building systems on the operation energy use. Annual values of key parameters for the

CR
considered climate location in the energy balance calculations are presented in Table 4.

US
Table 4 about here

Uncertainties related to key input parameter values and assumptions may influence building
AN
energy balance calculations. To reduce the effect of these uncertainties, input parameters and
assumptions have been selected to reflect the specific thermal characteristics and surroundings
of the analysed buildings as suggested in [59, 60]. Table 5 gives the key input parameter
M

values and assumptions for the energy balance calculations of the building systems.
ED

Table 5 about here

PT

The primary energy use to deliver the operation final energy use of the buildings was
CE

determined with the ENSYST software [61]. The primary energy use is calculated taking into
account the processes along the entire supply chains of the considered energy systems. The
heat supply to the reference building is from district heating based on a biomass combined
AC

heat and power (CHP) plant, woody chips and woody powder heat only boilers (HOB) with
68%, 30.5% and 1.5% of the total heat production, respectively [62]. The heat supply to the
different building alternatives are the same as that of the reference building. Other heat supply
options, based on district heating with HOB and ground source heat pump are also considered
for the analysed building systems. In the CHP system, allocation between the heat and
cogenerated electricity is avoided by the subtraction method and the cogenerated electricity is
assumed to replace electricity from a stand-alone plant with similar technology and fuel input

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

as the CHP plant [63]. The primary energy benefit due to the replaced electricity is thus
credited to the district heating system. The electricity to operate the heat pump as well as the
ventilation systems and household equipment in the analysed buildings is assumed to be
generated in a BST plant. Table 6 gives the conversion efficiencies and capacities of the
considered energy supply technologies.

Table 6 about here

T
IP
3.3. End-of-life

CR
Energy use over the end-of-life phase of buildings is associated with demolition, recovery,
transportation and processing of the demolished materials. A variety of demolished materials

US
can be generated in different quantities at the end-of-life of buildings. Increasingly, effective
end-of-life management of demolished building materials is seen as an important aspect of
AN
minimising the environmental impacts and life cycle primary energy use of buildings. Here,
the buildings are assumed to be operated for a life span of 80 years, after which they are
dismantled and the major recyclable materials, including concrete, steel and wood materials
M

are recovered. Life spans of 100 and 150 years are also considered to show the consequences
on the life cycle primary energy balance of the building systems. The end-of-life primary
ED

energy balance is estimated by deducting the primary energy benefits from the recovered
wood, concrete and steel from the primary energy use to demolish and transport the
PT

demolished building materials based on Dodoo et al. [64], assuming that 90% of the
demolished materials are recovered [11]. The primary energy use for demolition is taken to be
10 kWh/m2 for the wood buildings to the BBR standard based on Gustavsson et al. [26], who
CE

analysed a massive wood frame building in Sweden with similar construction details as the
CLT building system. The primary energy use to demolish the concrete building to the BBR
AC

standard is assumed to be double this value based on [54]. The primary energy use for
demolition of the passive building systems is estimated as proportionally equal to that of the
respective BBR alternatives, weighted by their relative amounts of primary energy for
material production. The recovered concrete is assumed to be crushed into aggregate for
below ground application in road construction while the recovered steel is assumed to be used
as feedstock for new steel production, replacing ore-based raw materials. The recovered
wood-based materials are assumed to be used as bioenergy.

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Buildings are complex systems, and a particular material may fulfil more than one function
and a given building function may be fulfilled by a combination of materials or components
[14]. Hence appropriate functional units need to be determined for comparative life cycle
analyses of buildings. Energy performance of buildings may be expressed using different
indicators, usually normalised by the conditioned floor area in order to facilitate comparison
between buildings. However, the calculation of the conditioned floor area is not standardised
and may be based on internal, external or overall internal dimensions and this may result in up
to 20% discrepancies in energy performance indicators [65]. Here, the functional unit is

T
defined at the complete building level and expressed per conditioned (heated) floor area. The

IP
heated floor area is defined as areas enclosed by the inside of the building envelope and

CR
heated above 10 ºC according to the Swedish building code [41]. The resource use
implications over the life cycle of the analysed building systems are expressed in terms of the
primary energy balance indicator.

4. Results and discussion US

AN
Differences in the annual space heating demands due to thermal mass effect of the frame
materials for the CLT and modular building systems compared to the concrete alternative are
shown in Table 7. The effect of thermal mass is small, accounting for about 0.3 and 0.2
M

kWh/m2 lower space heating demand, respectively for the BBR and passive concrete building
systems under the considered climate. The annual profiles of final space heating demands of
ED

the building systems arranged in descending order are also shown in Figure 6. The effect of
thermal mass is slightly more evident in spring compared to winter for the building systems,
PT

confirming findings from Dodoo et al. [33]. The differences due to thermal mass are however
insignificant between the CLT and modular building systems.
CE

Table 7 about here

AC

Figure 6 about here

To achieve functionally equivalent thermal performances and readily facilitate comparison of

the analysed building systems, the external wall insulation for the CLT and Modular building
systems are further increased to account for the differences due to thermal mass effect
between them and the concrete alternative. Thus all the building systems are modelled to the
same annual final energy for operation under the BBR standard or passive criteria. The CLT
14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and modular building systems to the BBR standard require 3.5 and 4 mm (i.e. 2.6 and 3.1%)
extra external wall insulation, respectively to make up for the effect of thermal mass.
Similarly, the buildings to the passive criteria each requires 10 mm extra external wall
insulation, which gives an increase of 3 and 3.6%, respectively for the CLT and modular
building systems. The mass of major materials comprising the different building systems to
the BBR standard and passive criteria are presented in Table 8. The passive buildings have
more insulation materials, and also lumber in the case of the CLT and modular buildings,
compared to the BBR buildings. Concrete and crushed stone represent the largest shares of the

T
total mass of all the building systems. The concrete in the CLT and modular building systems

IP
are used in the foundation and constitute about 23 and 27%, respectively of their total

CR
building mass while the share of wooden materials is 36 and 25%, respectively. For the
concrete building system, concrete and wooden materials constitute about 86 and 2% of the
total building material mass balance, respectively.

US
Table 8 about here
AN

The primary energy use for material production and building construction for the building
systems to the BBR standard and passive criteria are shown in Figure 7. The concrete building
M

requires 27 and 37% more primary energy for material production than the CLT and modular
buildings, respectively, when designed to the BBR standard. The corresponding shares are 25
ED

and 33% when the building systems are designed to meet the passive criteria. The primary
energy use for material production of the buildings to the passive criteria is about 5% more
PT

than that of the BBR for the concrete and CLT building systems, and 11% more for the
modular building system. This could be attributed to the greater amount of envelope materials
CE

such as insulation, glazing and wood based materials required to achieve the higher thermal
performance of the analysed buildings to the passive criteria than the BBR standard.
AC

Figure 7 about here

Table 9 shows the primary energy balance for the production phase of the different building
systems, including the various end-use energy carriers as well as available biomass residues
(shown as negative values) from forest harvest, wood material processing and on-site
construction activities. Fossil fuels account for a significant share of the total primary energy
use for material production for all the building systems, constituting averagely 64, 36 and

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

43% for the concrete, CLT and modular building systems, respectively. Electricity accounts
for 32, 38 and 40% of the total primary energy use for material production for the concrete,
CLT and modular building systems, respectively. The share of bioenergy in the total primary
energy use for material production is about 4, 26 and 18% for the concrete, CLT and Modular
building systems, respectively. The CLT and modular building systems give significantly
higher biomass residues over the material production and building construction phases than
the concrete alternative. The CLT building system has 48 and 85% more wood materials than
the modular and concrete building alternatives, respectively while the modular building has

T
about 64% more wood materials than the concrete alternative. The heating values of the

IP
recoverable biomass residues over the production phase of the CLT building system to the

CR
BBR and passive criteria are significantly larger than the primary energy required for their
material production.

US
Table 9 about here
AN

The annual final and primary energy use for operation based on different heat supply options
M

are presented in Tables 10 and 11, respectively for the building systems to the BBR standard
and passive criteria, adjusted for thermal mass effect. Space heating accounts for the largest
ED

part of the operation final energy use for the building systems, followed by household
electricity and tap water heating. The building systems to the passive criteria have about 44
and 47% less operation final and primary energy use, respectively than the corresponding
PT

building systems to the BBR standard. Household electricity dominates the operation primary
energy use for the building systems, accounting for 48-63% of the total primary energy use
CE

depending on the thermal performance of the building and heat supply option. This is
followed by space heating, making up 17-30% of the total operation primary energy use. In
AC

this study, standard household appliances, water taps and shower heads are assumed for the
BBR buildings while for the passive alternatives these are assumed to have a better energy
efficiency level (see Table 5). The energy efficiency level of household appliances does not
influence the choice and thermal performance of building frame materials but alters the space
heating demand due to changed internal heat gains. The primary energy use for tap water
heating and electricity for ventilation and household appliances is about 49% lower for the
passive buildings compared to the BBR alternatives, agreeing with earlier studies [62, 66] that

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

significant primary energy benefits are achieved when efficient instead of standard appliances
are used. Among the considered heat supply option, district heating based on CHP gives the
lowest operation primary energy use, followed by heat pump and heat only boilers. This is
due to the high overall efficiency of district heating systems with CHP plants compared to
stand-alone plants.
Table 10 about here

T
Table 11 about here

IP
The primary energy balance for the end-of-life phase of the different building systems,

CR
including the benefits (shown as negative values) from concrete and steel recycling as well as
the recovery of wood-based demolition materials for energy is shown in Table 12. The

US
benefits from concrete and steel recycling are significantly higher for the concrete building
system compared to the CLT and modular alternatives. Still, the net end-of-life primary
energy benefits of the CLT and modular building systems are 49-51 and 13-17%, respectively
AN
higher than that of the concrete alternative depending on the energy performance of the
buildings. The CLT and modular building systems to the passive criteria give slightly greater
M

end-of-life primary energy benefits compared to the alternatives to the BBR standard, mainly
due to increased wood recovery for energy. These results agree with findings from a previous
ED

study [33] that energy recovery from demolished wood materials and products generally gives
larger primary energy benefits, compared to recycling of steel and concrete. Analyses of the
end-of-life management scenarios of demolished materials in this study are based on
PT

prevalent practices with regards to concrete, steel and wood waste materials. Other
environmental implications such as leaching emissions may be associated with the use of
CE

demolished concrete as filling material for road construction but these effects are expected to
be minor on the results and are not considered here. In a comprehensive LCA including
AC

leaching emissions assessment, Butera et al. [67] showed that using demolished concrete in
road construction is a better option than landfilling for most environmental impact categories.
Similarly, other end-of-life management scenarios for demolished wood such as reuse or
reprocessing into secondary products e.g. particleboard or paper, may be adopted in instances
where wood resources are limited [68]. Hossain and Poon [69] analysed different scenarios of
wood waste management in a life cycle perspective, including reprocessing for particleboard

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

production, bioenergy recovery and landfilling and found that bioenergy recovery to replace
energy use from coal gave the highest benefit.

Table 12 about here

The complete life cycle primary energy balance, assuming an 80 year life span with space

T
heating based on CHP for the building systems is given in Table 13. The primary energy use
for production of the building systems ranges between 7-10% and 15-22% of the total life

IP
cycle primary energy balance (taking into account the recoverable biomass residues and

CR
benefits from concrete and steel recycling) of the building systems to the BBR standard and
passive criteria, respectively. All the building alternatives are designed to the same operation

US
energy use under the BBR or passive criteria. The operation phase dominates the life cycle
primary energy use of the building systems with space heating based on CHP and ventilation
electricity accounting for 70-79% of the total primary energy use for the building systems to
AN
the BBR standard, including material production, building construction, space heating,
ventilation and demolition. The corresponding shares for the passive building systems are 52-
M

63%. Overall, the CLT and modular building systems give about 20 and 9% lower life cycle
primary energy balance than the concrete alternative to the BBR standard. The corresponding
ED

shares are 37 and 17%, respectively when the buildings are designed to the passive criteria.
The life cycle primary energy balances of the analysed building systems vary widely
depending on the choice of heat supply options and building life span (Table 14). The CLT
PT

building system gives the lowest life cycle primary energy balance, followed by the modular
and concrete alternatives and this occurs when space heating is based on CHP. For a life span
CE

of 100 years, the shares of space heating with CHP and ventilation electricity is slightly
higher forming 74-83% and 58-68% of the total primary energy use for the BBR and passive
AC

buildings, respectively. The corresponding shares for a 150 year life span are 81-88% and 67-
76%, respectively. The variations with the different life spans are mainly due to the increased
operation energy use of the analysed buildings for longer life spans. A building’s design,
choice of materials, mechanical installations and life span may influence the rate of
maintenance and repairs and this can affect the energy use over the operation phase and
consequently the life cycle primary energy balances as analysed here. In this study, the energy
use for maintenance and repairs is not considered due to lack of relevant data for the analysed

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

building systems. However, as the analysed buildings are assumed to have similar designs and
mechanical installations, the energy use for maintenance and repairs due to the different frame
materials is expected not to differ for the analysed building systems with the same life spans
[70]. Still, such analyses should be considered in further studies. Several factors such as
structural function, acoustics, fire resistance and inadequate building codes and standards still
impede the use of timber frame systems, especially for multi storey buildings [36, 37, 71].
Increasingly, attempts to address these problems are being made, including the development
of engineered wood products and innovative construction systems such as have been analysed

T
here. A recent study showed that mass timber with CLT structural frame is a viable alternative

IP
to reinforced concrete for a 20 storey high rise apartment building in high seismic regions in

CR
the United States [71]. The focus in this study is to assess the energy and resource use
implications of different frame materials using a 6 storey building as reference. However, as
the design and engineering of timber buildings with increasing storey heights continue to be

US
explored, future studies may consider the implications of building thermal performance and
different storey heights on energy use in a life cycle perspective.
AN

Table 13 about here

M

Table 14 about here

ED
PT

5. Conclusions

The primary energy use implications of different framing materials for multi storey residential
CE

building systems, designed to different energy performances have been analysed and
compared in this study using a system-wide lifecycle perspective approach. The analysis
AC

covers the full energy and material flows linked to the life cycle phases of each building
system, including material production, transportation, building construction, operation and
end-of-life. The findings suggest that the analysed CLT and modular building systems result
in lower primary energy use for material production and construction with significant
amounts of recoverable biomass residues, compared to the concrete alternatives. Fossil fuels
and electricity dominate the production primary energy use for the building systems, with the
concrete alternative having the highest share of fossil fuels use for material production. The

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

operation phase dominates the life cycle primary energy use of the building systems, followed
by the production phase. The share of primary energy use for production to the total life cycle
primary energy balance is significantly higher for the passive building systems compared to
the BBR alternatives. Furthermore, the life cycle primary energy balance of the building
systems vary with the choice of heat supply, energy performance and building life span.
Overall, for the building systems meeting the BBR standard, the CLT and modular systems
give 20 and 9% less total life cycle primary energy balance, respectively than the concrete
alternative for an 80 year life span and when space heating is based on CHP, compared to 16

T
and 7% when space heating is based on HOB. The corresponding shares for the passive

IP
building systems are 37 and 17%, respectively for CHP-based space heating, compared to 30

CR
and 13% for space heating based on HOB. These findings suggest that it is important to
combine the choice of building frame materials with the design of low energy buildings and
efficient energy supply systems during the operation phase. This study emphasises the

US
potential of increased use of wood construction materials in achieving resource efficiency for
a sustainable built environment.
AN
M

Title: Effect of different frame materials on the primary energy use of a multi storey
residential building in a life cycle perspective
ED

Order of authors: Uniben Yao Ayikoe Tettey* (0000-0003-2111-806X), Ambrose Dodoo and
Leif Gustavsson
PT

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
CE
AC

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Swedish Energy Agency, Växjö
municipality, Växjöbostäder, Växjö Energi AB, Södra Skogsägarnas ekonomiska förening
and Ronneby municipality (CEFUR). Lindbäcks and Martinsons are also gratefully
acknowledged for design and data support for the timber buildings.

Appendix A.
20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. The energy used for producing the materials in the building is calculated as:

∑ {∑ [ ( )] }

where Eproduction is the total primary energy use for material production (kWh); i are the
individual types of materials in the building; F is the end-use fossil fuel to extract, process,
and transport the materials (kWh); k is the type of fossil fuel: coal, oil, and fossil gas; α is the
fuel cycle energy requirement of the fossil fuel based on [50]; L is the end-use electricity to

T
extract, process, and transport the materials (kWhe); η is the conversion efficiency for

IP
electricity production; B is the heat content (lower heating value) of the biofuels used in
material processing (kWh). The energy-use parameters F, L and B are calculated for each

CR
material by multiplying the quantity of material in kg by the specific end-use energy (see
Table 2) to extract, process and transport each material in kWh of the various energy carriers
per kg of material.
US
2. The energy available from recovered biomass residues is calculated as:
AN
∑{ [ ( )]}

where Ebyproducts is the net energy from recovered biomass residues (kWh); j are the different
M

types of residues: forest, processing, construction and demolition; M is the mass of the
recovered residue (oven dry tonnes); H is the lower heating value of the residue (kWh/oven
ED

dry tonne); β is the diesel fuel energy required to recover and transport the residue, expressed
as a proportion of the heat energy contained in the residue; α is the fuel cycle energy
PT

requirement of the diesel fuel based on [50].

3. The primary energy balance of the building materials is calculated as the primary energy
CE

expended to extract, process and transport the materials, minus the net energy of biomass
byproducts that can be recovered and made available for external use throughout the material
AC

life cycle and expressed as:

where EB is the primary energy balance of the materials; Eproduction is the primary energy used
to extract, process and transport the materials; Ebyproducts is the lower heating value of
recovered biomass residues from forestry, processing, construction and demolition, minus the
primary energy used for their recovery.

References

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. IEA International Energy Agency, World Energy outlook 2016. 2016.

2. Zabalza Bribián, I., A. Valero Capilla, and A. Aranda Usón, Life cycle assessment of building
materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the
eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 2011. 46(5): p. 1133-1140.
3. Eurostat, Energy, transport and environment indicators. Eurostat; 2016. Available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu. 2016.
4. Swedish Energy Agency, Energy in Sweden - Facts and Figures 2016. Available at:
http://www.energimyndigheten.se/en/news/2016/energy-in-sweden---facts-and-figures-
2016-available-now/. 2016.
5. Saheb, Y., et al., Energy Renovation: The Trump Card for the New Start for Europe. 2015: JRC
Science and policy reports. Web accessed at
http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/system/tdf/eur26888_buildingreport_online.pdf

T
?file=1&type=node&id=9069 on October 3, 2015.

IP
6. European Commission., Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. COM (2011) 571 final.
Brussels, 20.9.2011. Available online: http://www.cbss.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/10/energy-efficient-europe.pdf (accessed September 2016).

CR
7. Cabeza, L.F., et al., Low carbon and low embodied energy materials in buildings: A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013. 23(0): p. 536-542.
8. Tettey, U.Y.A., A. Dodoo, and L. Gustavsson, Effects of different insulation materials on

9. US
primary energy and CO2 emission of a multi-storey residential building. Energy and Buildings,
2014. 82(0): p. 369-377.
Tettey, U.Y.A., A. Dodoo, and L. Gustavsson, Primary energy implications of different design
strategies for an apartment building. Energy, 2016. 104: p. 132-148.
AN
10. Copiello, S., Economic implications of the energy issue: Evidence for a positive non-linear
relation between embodied energy and construction cost. Energy and Buildings, 2016.
123(Supplement C): p. 59-70.
11. Gustavsson, L. and A. Joelsson, Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential buildings.
M

Energy and Buildings, 2010. 42(2): p. 210-220.

12. Chastas, P., T. Theodosiou, and D. Bikas, Embodied energy in residential buildings-towards
the nearly zero energy building: A literature review. Building and Environment, 2016.
ED

105(Supplement C): p. 267-282.

13. Sathre, R. and L. Gustavsson, A state-of-the-art review of energy and climate effects of wood
product substitution. 2009, School of Technology and Design, Växjö University: Växjö.
PT

14. Sathre, R. and S. González-García, 14 - Life cycle assessment (LCA) of wood-based building
materials, in Eco-Efficient Construction and Building Materials, F. Pacheco-Torgal, et al.,
Editors. 2014, Woodhead Publishing. p. 311-337.
15. Nicoletti, G.M., B. Notarnicola, and G. Tassielli, Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of flooring
CE

materials: ceramic versus marble tiles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2002. 10(3): p. 283-
296.
16. Nebel, B., B. Zimmer, and G. Wegener, Life Cycle Assessment of Wood Floor Coverings - A
AC

Representative Study for the German Flooring Industry (11 pp). The International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment, 2006. 11(3): p. 172-182.
17. van der Lugt, P., A.A.J.F. van den Dobbelsteen, and J.J.A. Janssen, An environmental,
economic and practical assessment of bamboo as a building material for supporting
structures. Construction and Building Materials, 2006. 20(9): p. 648-656.
18. Babaizadeh, H. and M. Hassan, Life cycle assessment of nano-sized titanium dioxide coating
on residential windows. Construction and Building Materials, 2013. 40(Supplement C): p. 314-
321.
19. Saiz, S., et al., Comparative life cycle assessment of standard and green roofs. Environmental
science & technology, 2006. 40(13): p. 4312-4316.

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

20. Lippke, B. and E. Lucy, Environmental Performance Improvement in Residential Construction:

the impact of products, biofuels and processes (a Phase 2 research module). Forest Products
Journal 2006. 56(10): p. 58-63.
21. Su, X., et al., Life cycle inventory comparison of different building insulation materials and
uncertainty analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016. 112(Part 1): p. 275-281.
22. Gong, X., et al., Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emission of Residential
Building Designs in Beijing. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2012. 16(4): p. 576-587.
23. Skullestad, J.L., R.A. Bohne, and J. Lohne, High-rise Timber Buildings as a Climate Change
Mitigation Measure – A Comparative LCA of Structural System Alternatives. Energy Procedia,
2016. 96: p. 112-123.
24. Takano, A., et al., The effect of material selection on life cycle energy balance: A case study on
a hypothetical building model in Finland. Building and Environment, 2015. 89: p. 192-202.

T
25. Dimoudi, A. and C. Tompa, Energy and environmental indicators related to construction of

IP
office buildings. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2008. 53(1): p. 86-95.
26. Gustavsson, L., A. Joelsson, and R. Sathre, Life cycle primary energy use and carbon emission
of an eight-storey wood-framed apartment building. Energy and Buildings, 2010. 42(2): p.

CR
230-242.
27. Dodoo, A., L. Gustavsson, and R. Sathre, Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional and
low-energy multi-storey timber building systems. Energy and Buildings, 2014. 82: p. 194-210.
28.
US
Lu, H.R., A. El Hanandeh, and B.P. Gilbert, A comparative life cycle study of alternative
materials for Australian multi-storey apartment building frame constructions: Environmental
and economic perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017. 166(Supplement C): p. 458-
473.
AN
29. Dodoo, A., L. Gustavsson, and R. Sathre, Lifecycle primary energy analysis of low-energy
timber building systems for multi-storey residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 2014. 81:
p. 84-97.
30. Peñaloza, D., M. Erlandsson, and A. Falk, Exploring the climate impact effects of increased use
M

of bio-based materials in buildings. Construction and Building Materials, 2016.

125(Supplement C): p. 219-226.
31. Chiniforush, A.A., et al., Energy implications of using steel-timber composite (STC) elements in
ED

buildings. Energy and Buildings, 2018. 176: p. 203-215.

32. Robati, M., G. Kokogiannakis, and T.J. McCarthy, Impact of structural design solutions on the
energy and thermal performance of an Australian office building. Building and Environment,
PT

2017. 124: p. 258-282.

33. Dodoo, A., L. Gustavsson, and R. Sathre, Effect of thermal mass on life cycle primary energy
balances of a concrete- and a wood-frame building. Applied Energy, 2012. 92(0): p. 462-472.
34. Reilly, A. and O. Kinnane, The impact of thermal mass on building energy consumption.
CE

Applied Energy, 2017. 198(Supplement C): p. 108-121.

35. Krushna, M., G. Leif, and H. Kerstin, Multi‐storey wood‐frame buildings in Germany, Sweden
and the UK. Construction Innovation, 2012. 12(1): p. 62-85.
AC

36. Hemström, K., L. Gustavsson, and K. Mahapatra, The sociotechnical regime and Swedish
contractor perceptions of structural frames. Construction Management and Economics, 2017.
35(4): p. 184-195.
37. Hildebrandt, J., N. Hagemann, and D. Thrän, The contribution of wood-based construction
materials for leveraging a low carbon building sector in europe. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 2017. 34(Supplement C): p. 405-418.
38. Boverkets Byggregler, Boverkets Författningssamling, The national Board of Housing Building
and planning, Karlskrona. Available at
https://www.boverket.se/en/start/publications/publications/2015/application-of-the-
european-construction-standards-eks-10/ (In Swedish). 2015.
39. Swedish Standards Institute, Swedish Standard SS-EN 206:2013+A1:2016, in Concrete -
Specification, performance, production and conformity. 2016, Swedish Standards Institute,.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

40. Swedish Forest Industries Federation, Design of timber structures. Rules and formulas
according to Eurocode 5. 2:2016 ed. Vol. 2. 2016: Swedish Forest Industries Federation.
41. Boverkets Byggregler, Boverkets Författningssamling, The national Board of Housing Building
and planning, Karlskrona. Available at http://www.boverket.se (In Swedish). 2015.
42. Rockwool AB, Isolera rätt. Pocketguide för hantverkare (Insulating correctly. Pocket guide for
craftsmen). Available at https://static.rockwool.com/globalassets/rockwool-se/teknisk-
support/broschyrer/byggisolering/isolera-ratt-rockwool.pdf (in Swedish). 2015.
43. FEBY 12, Kravspecifikation för nollenergihus passivhus och minienergihus Bostäder. Available
at www.passivhuscentrum.se/sites/default/files/kravspecifikation (In Swedish). 2012.
44. European Committee for Standardization, EN 15978 Sustainability of construction works—
assessment of environmental performance of buildings—calculation method 2011.
45. Gustavsson, L., K. Pingoud, and R. Sathre, Carbon Dioxide Balance of Wood Substitution:

T
Comparing Concrete- and Wood-Framed Buildings. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for

IP
Global Change, 2006. 11(3): p. 667-691.
46. Takano, A., et al., Life cycle assessment of wood construction according to the normative
standards. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products, 2015. 73(3): p. 299-312.

CR
47. Ecoinvent, The Ecoinvent database. Available at
https://www.ecoinvent.org/database/database.html.
48. Pal, S.K., et al., A life cycle approach to optimizing carbon footprint and costs of a residential

49.
US
building. Building and Environment, 2017. 123(Supplement C): p. 146-162.
Björklund, T. and A.-M. Tillman, LCA of building frame structures: environmental impact over
the life cycle of wooden and concrete frames in: Technical Environmental Planning Report 2.
1997, Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden.
AN
50. Gustavsson, L. and R. Sathre, Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of wood and
concrete building materials. Building and Environment, 2006. 41(7): p. 940-951.
51. Olkkonen, V. and S. Syri, Spatial and temporal variations of marginal electricity generation:
the case of the Finnish, Nordic, and European energy systems up to 2030. Journal of Cleaner
M

Production, 2016. 126: p. 515-525.

52. Cole, R.J., Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of
alternative structural systems. Building and Environment, 1998. 34(3): p. 335-348.
ED

53. Adalberth, K., A. Almgren, and H.P. E., Life-cycle assessment of four multi-family buildings.
International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings, 2001. 2: p. 1-21.
54. Adalberth, K., Energy Use and Environmental Impact of New Residential Buildings, in
PT

Department of Building Physics. 2000, Lund University: Lund.

55. Mantau, U., et al., EU wood – Real potential for changes in growth and use of EU forests.
Methodology report. Hamburg/Germany, June 2010. 2010. p. 165.
56. Lehtonen, A., et al., Biomass expansion factors (BEFs) for Scots pine, Norway spruce and birch
CE

according to stand age for boreal forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 2004. 188(1): p.
211-224.
57. StruSoft, VIP-Energy, StruSoft AB. Sweden. http://www.strusoft.com/products/vip-energy
AC

58. SMHI Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. Climate indicators. Available at
http://www.smhi.se/en/climate/climate-indicators/climate-indicators-1.91461. 2015.
59. Dodoo, A., U.Y.A. Tettey, and L. Gustavsson, On input parameters, methods and assumptions
for energy balance and retrofit analyses for residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 2017.
137: p. 76-89.
60. Dodoo, A., U.Y.A. Tettey, and L. Gustavsson, Influence of simulation assumptions and input
parameters on energy balance calculations of residential buildings. Energy, 2017. 120: p. 718-
730.
61. Karlsson, Å., ENSYST, Version 1.2. 2003, Lund University: Lund.
62. Truong, N.L., A. Dodoo, and L. Gustavsson, Effects of heat and electricity saving measures in
district-heated multistory residential buildings. Applied Energy, 2014. 118(0): p. 57-67.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

63. Gustavsson, L. and Å. Karlsson, CO2 mitigation: on methods and parameters forcomparison
of fossil fuel and biofuel systems. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,
2006. 11 p. 935–959.
64. Dodoo, A., L. Gustavsson, and R. Sathre, Carbon implications of end-of-life management of
building materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2009. 53(5): p. 276-286.
65. Zirngibl, J., J.C. Visier, and K. Arkesteijn, Europeam projects Energy performance certificates
EN 15217 "Energy performance of buildings – Methods for expressing energy performance
and for the energy certification of buildings" available at
http://www.buildup.eu/sites/default/files/content/P155_EN_CENSE_EN_15217.pdf. 2009.
66. Dodoo, A., L. Gustavsson, and U.Y.A. Tettey, Final energy savings and cost-effectiveness of
deep energy renovation of a multi-storey residential building. Energy, 2017. 135: p. 563-576.
67. Butera, S., T.H. Christensen, and T.F. Astrup, Life cycle assessment of construction and

T
demolition waste management. Waste Management, 2015. 44: p. 196-205.

IP
68. Sathre, R. and L. Gustavsson, Energy and carbon balances of wood cascade chains.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2006. 47(4): p. 332-355.
69. Hossain, M.U. and C.S. Poon, Comparative LCA of wood waste management strategies

CR
generated from building construction activities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018. 177: p.
387-397.
70. O’Connor, J. Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings. in In proceedings of

71.
US
Wood frame Housing Durability and Disaster Issues. 2004. Las Vegas, 2004.
Timmers, M. and A. Tsay Jacobs, Concrete apartment tower in Los Angeles reimagined in
mass timber. Engineering Structures, 2017.
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1. Thermal properties of the concrete, CLT and modular building systems to the different energy
efficiency standards.
Description U-values (W/m2K)
BBR Passive
Ground floor 0.11 0.11
Exterior walls 0.22 0.11
Windows 1.2 0.8
Doors 1.2 0.8
Roof 0.08 0.05
Infiltration (l/s m2 @50 Pa) 0.6 0.3

T
Mechanical ventilation Balanced with VHRa Balanced with VHRa

IP
a
Ventilation heat recovery

CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2. Specific end-use energy (kWhend-use/kg) to extract, process and transport selected building
materials based on Björklund and Tillman [49].
Material Coal Oil Fossil gas Bioenergy Electricity
Concrete 0.09 0.10 – – 0.02
Plasterboard – 0.79 – – 0.16
Stone wool 2.00 0.36 0.02 – 0.39
Glasswool 2.87 0.52 0.03 – 2.00
EPS 0.28 3.9 3.72 – 0.63
Lumber – 0.15 – 0.70 0.14
Particleboard – 0.39 – 1.39 0.42
Steel (ore-based) 3.92 0.86 1.34 – 0.91
Steel (scrap-based) 0.06 0.08 0.44 – 0.57

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3. Quantities and characteristics of recovered biomass residues based on Gustavsson et al. [45].
The energy for recovery and transport is expressed as percentage of the heat value of recovered
biomass.
Biomass residues Recovery, % Moisture Lower heating value, Recovery energy,
content, % kWh/kg dry biomass % of heat value
Branches, foliage, tops 70 60 4.25 5
Bark 100 60 4.25 1
Processing residues 100 50 4.61 1
Construction residues 100 15 5.17 1
Demolition 90 15 5.17 1

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4. Annual values of key climate parameters for the energy balance calculations from [58].
Description Outdoor temperature, °C Solar radiation, W/m2 Wind speed, m/s Relative humidity, %
Maximum 28 912 17 100
Average 7 105 2 81
Minimum -17 0 0 24

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5. Key input parameter values and assumptions for the energy balance calculations.
Values
Description Parameter
STa BATb
c
Indoor set points Heating 22 ºC /18 ºC 21 ºC /18 ºC
Cooling 26 ºC 26 ºC

Heat gains Persons 80 W/ person 80 W/ person

Lighting and appliance 2.94 W/m² 1.35 W/m²
Hot water circulation 1.05 W/ m² 0.68 W/ m²

T
Hot water Annual average intensity 2.85 W/m² 1.75 W/m²

IP
Electric power use Annual average intensity 3.41 W/m² 1.69 W/m²

Ventilation, pumps, Air change rated 0.1/ 0.35 l/sm² 0.1/ 0.35 l/sm²

CR
heat exchanger and
fans Heat recovery 75% 80%

Fan pressure 400 Pa 400 Pa

a
Fan efficiency
US 33% 50%

ST refers to appliances and technical equipment based on standard technology with typical energy
AN
efficiency level.
b
BAT refers to appliances and technical equipment based on best available technology with energy
efficiency level of state-of-the-art.
c
For living and common areas, respectively.
M

d 2
Air change rates of 0.1 and 0.35 l/s m are assumed for when the building is unoccupied and
occupied, respectively, based on Swedish building code [41].
ED
PT
CE
AC

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 6. Conversion efficiencies and capacities of the considered energy supply technologies.
Technology Capacity Efficiency
a
Stand-alone power plant : (MWelec) (ηelec)
Biomass steam turbine (BST) 400 0.40
Cogeneration plantsa: (MWheat) (ηelec/ηheat)
CHP-BST 81 0.29/0.78
Heat-only plantsa: (MWheat) (ηheat)
Heat pump 10 3.0b
Wood powder 50 0.88
Wood chip 50 1.08

T
Distribution systems: (ηD)c
District heating 0.88

IP
Electricity 0.93
End-use heating: (η)

CR
District heating heat exchanger 0.95
a
Data for the heat and power plants are based on lower heating values and adapted from [62].
b
Coefficient of performance (COP).
c
Efficiency of district heating and electricity distribution systems.

US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 7. Variations in annual space heating demands for the different building systems, kWh/m2
(heated floor area)
Description BBR Passive
Concrete CLT Modular Concrete CLT Modular
Space heating 37.2 37.5 37.5 22.2 22.4 22.4
Difference (from concrete) - 0.3 0.3 - 0.2 0.2

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 8. Mass, kg of air-dry material per m2 of major materials in the finished buildings to the BBR
standard and passive criteria. The numbers in brackets show the differences in material mass when the
buildings are designed to the passive criteria.
Materials Concrete CLT Modular
Concrete 1700.9 135.9 135.9
Steel 56.5 7.4 (7.5) 8.4
Lumber 30.2 68.3 (75.6) 85.8 (91.0)
Particle board 12.3 0.0 13.5
Plywood 1.8 12.4 17.2
CLT 0.0 104.2 0.0
Glue-laminated wood 0.0 23.9 4.6

T
Stone wool insulation 4.2 (6.6) 11.1 (18.8) 3.5 (6.3)
Glass wool insulation 0.0 0.0 9.0 (14.0)

IP
EPS insulation 5.3 (8.1) 2.7 2.7
Plasterboard 13.4 65.1 68.9

CR
Plastic (PVC) 1.4 1.4 1.4
Marmoleum 0.2 0.2 0.2
Crushed stone 119.7 119.7 119.7
Mortar 2.6
Aluminium
Copper
Glass
1.3
0.4 US
12.4 (17.7)
2.6
1.3
0.4
12.4 (17.7)
2.6
1.3
0.4
12.4 (17.7)
AN
Tar paper 0.7 0.7 0.7
Paint 0.6 0.6 0.6
Putty /fillers 2.9 2.9 2.9
Asphalt 0.1 0.1 0.1
M

Porcelain 0.4 0.4 0.4

Ceramics 7.8 7.8 7.8
ED
PT
CE
AC

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 9. Primary energy balance for the production phase of the different building systems, kWh/m2
(heated floor area)
Description BBR Passive
Concrete CLT Modular Concrete CLT Modular
Material production:
Fossil fuels 717 300 306 759 334 345
Electricity 363 313 280 373 327 316
Bioenergy 45 214 119 45 219 123
Total 1125 826 705 1177 880 784

T
Building construction:
Fossil fuels 80 40 40 84 43 45

IP
Electricity 80 40 40 84 43 45
Total 160 80 80 167 85 89

CR
Total material production and
building construction 1285 906 785 1344 965 873

Heating value of biomass residuesa

Forest harvestb
Wood processing c
-56
-76
US -418
-1160
-189
-400
-56
-76
-431
-1193
-199
-424
AN
Construction -21 -100 -57 -21 -103 -59
Total -153 -1678 -646 -153 -1727 -682
a
Energy content based on lower heating value.
b
Includes branches and foliage.
M

c
Includes chips, sawdust and bark.
ED
PT
CE
AC

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 10. Annual final energy use for operation of the building systems, kWh/m2 (heated floor area)
Space Ventilation Tap water Household
Description heating electricity heating electricity Total
BBR 37.2 5.2 21.0 31.6 95.0
Passive 22.2 1.7 12.6 16.2 52.7

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 11. Annual primary energy use for operation of the building systems, kWh/m2 (heated floor
area) with different heat supply systems.
Space Ventilation Tap water Household
Description heating electricity heating electricity Total
District heating_CHP
BBR 23.7 14.2 13.4 86.1 137.5
Passive 14.2 4.7 8.0 44.3 71.2

District heating_HOB
BBR 45.6 14.2 25.8 86.1 171.7
Passive 27.2 4.7 15.4 44.3 91.6

T
Heat pump
BBR 33.8 14.2 19.1 86.1 153.2

IP
Passive 20.2 4.7 11.4 44.3 80.6

CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 12. End-of-life primary energy use and benefits, kWh/m2 (heated floor area)
Description BBR Passive
Concrete CLT Modular Concrete CLT Modular
Demolition 20 10 10 21 11 11
Concrete recycling -30 -2 -2 -30 -2 -2
Steel recycling -251 -33 -37 -251 -33 -37
Heating value of biomass
residues -169 -818 -465 -169 -846 -486
Total -430 -843 -495 -429 -871 -514

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 13. Life cycle primary energy balance of the different building systems, kWh/m2 (heated floor
area)
Description BBR Passive
Concrete CLT Modular Concrete CLT Modular
Production and construction phase
Material production and
construction 1285 906 785 1344 965 873
Heating value of biomass
residues -153 -1678 -646 -153 -1727 -682

Operationa phase (80 years) 10998 10998 10998 5693 5693 5693

T
End-of-life phase

IP
Energy use for building
demolition 20 10 10 21 11 11

CR
Concrete and steel recycling
benefits -281 -35 -39 -281 -35 -39
Heating value for biomass
residues -169 -818 -465 -169 -846 -486

a
Life cycle primary energy
balance 11700
US 9384 10642 6456
Includes space and tap water heating (with CHP) and electricity for ventilation and household
4060 5370
AN
appliances.
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 14. Variations in total life cycle primary energy balance of the different building systems,
kWh/m2 (heated floor area) for different heat supply options and life spans.
Description BBR Passive
Concrete CLT Modular Concrete CLT Modular
80 year life span
CHP 11700 9384 10641 6456 4060 5370
HOB 14439 12123 13380 8092 5696 7006
Heat pump 12961 10645 11903 7209 4813 6123

100 year life span

T
CHP 14449 12133 13391 7879 5483 6793
HOB 17873 15557 16815 9924 7528 8838

IP
Heat pump 16026 13710 14967 8821 6425 7735

CR
150 year life span
CHP 21323 19007 20265 11437 9041 10351
HOB 26459 24143 25400 14505 12109 13419
Heat pump 23688 21372

US 22630 12850 10454 11764

AN
M
ED
PT

List of figure captions

CE

Figure 1. Floor plan (left) and section (right) of the reference concrete building.
AC

Figure 2. Outer wall details for the concrete (left), CLT (middle) and modular (right) buildings to the
BBR standard.

Figure 3. Outer wall details for the concrete (left), CLT (middle) and modular (right) buildings to the
passive criteria.

Figure 4. Roof details for the concrete (left), CLT (middle) and modular (right) buildings to the BBR
standard. For the passive building versions, the loose wool insulation is increased to 780 mm for the
concrete and 745 mm each for the CLT and modular buildings.

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 5. Foundation details for the concrete building. Foundation details are similar for the CLT and
modular buildings.

Figure 6. Annual profiles of space heating demand of the building systems to the BBR standard (left)
and passive criteria (right) arranged in descending order.

Figure 7. Primary energy for material production and construction of the building systems.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M

Figure 1. Floor plan (left) and section (right) of the reference concrete building.
ED
PT
CE
AC

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
Figure 2. Outer wall details for the concrete (left), CLT (middle) and modular (right) buildings to the
BBR standard.
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
Figure 3. Outer wall details for the concrete (left), CLT (middle) and modular (right) buildings to the
passive criteria.
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
Figure 4. Roof details for the concrete (left), CLT (middle) and modular (right) buildings to the BBR
standard. For the passive building versions, the loose wool insulation is increased to 780 mm for the
M

concrete and 745 mm each for the CLT and modular buildings.
ED
PT
CE
AC

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
Figure 5. Foundation details for the concrete building. Foundation details are similar for the CLT and
modular buildings.
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
Figure 6. Annual profiles of space heating demand of the building systems to the BBR standard (left)
and passive criteria (right) arranged in descending order.
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
Figure 7. Primary energy for material production and construction of the building systems.
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

46