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
Exploring the effects of several energy efficiency measures on the embodied/operational energy trade-off: a case study of Swedish residential buildings
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Industrilized and sustainable construction.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0907-1270
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering, Industrilized and sustainable construction.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4843-8936
2019 (English)In: Energy and Buildings, ISSN 0378-7788, E-ISSN 1872-6178, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 183, p. 283-296Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The building design process is crucial in efforts to implement energy-efficient practices by adopting Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs). However, design choices based solely on reducing operational energy use can significantly increase a building's embodied energy and Life Cycle Energy (LCE) use, because there is a trade-off between embodied and operational energy. This article presents a case study in which multi-objective optimization was used to explore the effects of various EEMs on the aforementioned trade-off. Optimal solution(s) for six different building shapes (rectangular, H-, U-, l-, T- and cross-shaped) based on two sets of EEMs were investigated and compared. The first set of EEMs consisted of EEMs that can be implemented or modified during the early design phase, such as the building's shape, orientation, Window to Wall Ratio (WWR), and constituent materials. The second set comprised EEMs that can be implemented later in the design phase (i.e. EEMs relating to the constituent materials). The LCE reductions achieved by finding optimal solutions for EEMs in the first set (ranged from 2175.2 to 3803.8 GJ) were significantly (over 5 times) higher than those achieved for the second set (ranged from 418.6 to 625.6 GJ) for all building shapes. Moreover, LCE use for pre-optimization building designs varied significantly with building shape. However, after optimization, the differences in LCE use between the optimal solutions of different building shapes were modest. This means that designers and construction companies can select building shapes based on customer requirements, but also highlights the importance of using multi-objective optimization during early design process to identify optimal combinations of EEMs that minimize LCE use.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2019. Vol. 183, p. 283-296
Keywords [en]
Building shape, Embodied energy, Energy efficiency measures, Life cycle energy, Multi-objective optimization, Operational energy
National Category
Construction Management
Research subject
Construction Management and Building Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-71756DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.11.026ISI: 000456760000022Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85056896979OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-71756DiVA, id: diva2:1265791
Note

Validerad;2018;Nivå 2;2018-11-29 (inah)

Available from: 2018-11-26 Created: 2018-11-26 Last updated: 2019-09-13Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Shadram, FarshidMukkavaara, Jani

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Shadram, FarshidMukkavaara, Jani
By organisation
Industrilized and sustainable construction
In the same journal
Energy and Buildings
Construction Management

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 318 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