Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings: Examples

Adalberth, Karin

doi:10.1016/s0360-1323(96)00069-8

Cited by 245 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Adalberth [13] proposed a methodology to account for LC energy of buildings from cradle to grave and applied it to three Swedish single-family houses prefabricated in a factory [12]. Among other results, Adalberth [12] concluded that the building use phase requires 85% of the total LC energy, while construction materials amount to 15%. Keoleian [14,15] evaluated LC energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and costs of a single-family house in Michigan to find opportunities for conserving energy throughout pre-use, use, and demolition phases.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Keoleian [14,15] evaluated LC energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and costs of a single-family house in Michigan to find opportunities for conserving energy throughout pre-use, use, and demolition phases. Since then, a number of LC studies of dwellings [4][5][6][7][8][9]12,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] as well as a few review papers [23][24][25][26] have been published.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[12][13][14][15]. For example, Adalberth [13] proposed a methodology to account for LC energy of buildings from cradle to grave and applied it to three Swedish single-family houses prefabricated in a factory [12].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: Comparison of three impact assessment methods

Monteiro

Freire

2012

Energy and Buildings

208

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tA life-cycle (LC) model has been implemented for a Portuguese single-family house. The first goal is to characterize the main LC processes (material production and transport, heating, cooling, maintenance) assessing seven alternative exterior walls for the same house to identify environmentally preferable solutions. The second goal is to compare the results of three life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods -CED (cumulative energy demand), for primary energy accounting; CML 2001 (Institute of Environmental Sciences of Leiden University) and EI'99 (Eco-indicator'99), for multiple environmental impacts -to determine the extent to which the results of a life-cycle assessment are influenced by the method applied. The results show that the most significant LC process depends on the operational pattern assumed. Regarding the assessment of the exterior wall alternatives, the results indicate the wood-wall is the preferable solution. Non-renewable CED shows results similar to abiotic depletion (CML 2001) and resources (EI'99) categories, as well as some correlation with climate change/global warming potential (GWP), acidification and eutrophication. However, no correlation was found with the remaining impact categories. Comparing CML 2001 and EI'99 categories, GWP, ozone layer depletion, abiotic depletion, acidification, and eutrophication present robust results that permit a straightforward comparison between the two LCIA methods. Nevertheless, CML results present slightly higher impacts for the use phase, while EI'99 for material production. In addition, the two LCIA methods can present inconsistent results between similar categories (different ranking of alternatives), which ultimately can influence the choice among solutions.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: Comparison of three impact assessment methods

Monteiro

Freire

2012

Energy and Buildings

208

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study it was concluded, after performing analysis, that the use-phase has the major environmental impact, say about 70%-90% [Adalberth, 1997]. Likewise, in the same study by Junnila and colleagues as mentioned in the previous section, it was analyzed that the use-phase of the building had the maximum environmental impact [Junnila, 2006].…”

Section: Research Studies Focused On Different Phases Of the Buildingmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…As per the analysis, the concrete used was 75% by weight but the energy consumption was only 28% [Adalberth, 1997]. After analyzing, that the embodied energy accounted for 45% of total energy requirement, Thormark concluded that by using low-energy dwellings, the energy consumption would be recovered by about 37%-42% [Thormark, 2002].…”

Section: Impacts Of Building As a Wholementioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental and Cost impact Analysis of Materials and Assemblies in Building Construction

Nirmal¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co‐ordination of the Design and Building Process for Optimal Building Performance

Sörensen¹

2003

Construction Process Improvement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings: Examples

Cited by 245 publications

References 1 publication

Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: Comparison of three impact assessment methods

Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: Comparison of three impact assessment methods

Environmental and Cost impact Analysis of Materials and Assemblies in Building Construction

Co‐ordination of the Design and Building Process for Optimal Building Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About