Skip to main content

Trade-Off Optimization of Embodied Versus Operational Carbon Impact for Insulation and Window to Wall Ratio Design Choices: A Case Study

Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST,volume 131)

Abstract

Evaluation of carbon impacts during building design has for too long unilaterally focused on the operational carbon impacts through the application of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs), e.g. enhancing the thermal resistance of the building envelope by using additional insulations, Window to Wall Ratio (WWR) etc. Research indicates that there is a need to also include the embodied carbon impacts and optimizing the trade-off between embodied and operational carbon impacts. Multi-objective optimization approaches can be a solution for handling this trade-off. Therefore, a previously developed BIM-based multi-objective optimization approach has been extended to also cover the impact of the carbon footprint. The extended optimization approach was then tested in a case study of a multifamily residential building located in Stockholm to find the optimal design solutions of the embodied versus operational carbon impact trade-off. The results of the case study demonstrate the applicability of the extended approach in handling the trade-off problem and aiding in more environmentally friendly decisions during the design process.

Keywords

  • Embodied carbon impact
  • Genetic algorithms
  • Life cycle carbon impact
  • Multi-objective optimization
  • Operational carbon impact
  • Trade-off

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-04293-6_2
  • Chapter length: 9 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-04293-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

References

  1. United Nations Environment Programme: Buildings and climate change: summary for decision makers (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  2. United Nations Environment Programme: Common carbon metric for measuring energy use and reporting greenhouse gas emissions from building operations (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gustavsson, L., Joelsson, A.: Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential buildings. Energy Build. 42(2), 210–220 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.08.017

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Liljenström, C., Malmqvist, T., Erlandsson, M., et al.: Byggandets klimatpåverkan: Livscykelberäkning av klimatpåverkan och energianvändning för ett nyproducerat energieffektivt flerbostadshus i betong (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chastas, P., Theodosiou, T., Bikas, D.: Embodied energy in residential buildings-towards the nearly zero energy building: a literature review. Build Environ. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.040

  6. Dixit, M.K., Fernández-Solís, J.L., Lavy, S., Culp, C.H.: Identification of parameters for embodied energy measurement: a literature review. Energy Build. 42(8), 1238–1247 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.016

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Ding, G.K.C.: Sustainable construction—the role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ. Manag. 86(3), 451–464 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Chau, C., Leung, T., Ng, W.: A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy assessment and life cycle carbon emissions assessment on buildings. Appl. Energy 143, 395–413 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.093

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Giesekam, J., Barrett, J., Taylor, P., Owen, A.: The greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for materials used in UK construction. Energy Build. 78, 202–214 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.04.035

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Ibn-Mohammed, T., Greenough, R., Taylor, S., Ozawa-Meida, L., Acquaye, A.: Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—a review of current trends. Energy Build. 66, 232–245 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.026

  11. Shadram, F., Johansson, T.D., Lu, W., Schade, J., Olofsson, T.: An integrated BIM-based framework for minimizing embodied energy during building design. Energy Build. 128, 592–604 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.07.007

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Shadram, F., Mukkavaara, J.: An Integrated BIM-based framework for the optimization of the trade-off between embodied and operational energy. Energy Build. 2018(158), 1189–1205 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.017

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Hammond, G., Jones, C.: Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE) Version 2.0, Sustainable Energy Research Team (SERT), Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath UK (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Vattenfall: Origin of electricity in Sweden and its environmental impact for 2016. https://www.vattenfall.se/elavtal/energikallor/elens-ursprung/. Accessed 25 Dec 2017

  15. Swedish district heating association: District heating local environmental values for 2015. http://www.svenskfjarrvarme.se/In-English/District-Heating-in-Sweden/. Accessed 25 Dec 2017

  16. Construction elements and solutions. https://www.isover.se/. Accessed 25 Dec 2017

  17. Boverket: Swedish national board of housing, building and planning. Regulations and general advice on accessibility, housing design, room height, operating space, fire protection, hygiene, health and environment, noise protection, safety in use and energy conservation (2016). http://www.boverket.se/contentassets/a9a584aa0e564c8998d079d752f6b76d/konsoliderad_bbr_2011-6.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2017

  18. Sveby: Standards for energy in buildings. Input data for calculation of building’s energy use (2012). http://www.sveby.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Sveby_Brukarindata_bostader_version_1.0.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2017

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was part of E2B2- and BIOSIO projects and the authors would like to thank the projects’ funders Swedish energy agency, Formas and VINNOVA (Sweden’s innovation agency).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farshid Shadram .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Shadram, F., Mukkavaara, J., Schade, J., Sandberg, M., Olofsson, T. (2019). Trade-Off Optimization of Embodied Versus Operational Carbon Impact for Insulation and Window to Wall Ratio Design Choices: A Case Study. In: Kaparaju, P., Howlett, R., Littlewood, J., Ekanyake, C., Vlacic, L. (eds) Sustainability in Energy and Buildings 2018. KES-SEB 2018. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 131. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04293-6_2

Download citation