4.7 Article

Life cycle assessment of energy conservation measures during early stage office building design: A case study in London, UK

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 139, 期 -, 页码 547-568

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.089

关键词

Life cycle assessment; Life cycle analysis; Embodied energy; Operational energy; Design optimization; Office building

资金

  1. EPSRC [EP/P022405/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/P022405/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Embodied versus operational environmental indicators are often studied in isolation. This paper presents a cradle-to-grave Life Cycle Analysis of energy conservation measures for a planned large, medium rise office building in central London, UK with Gross Floor Area of 15,590 m(2) and a 60-year building lifetime. The original design complied with the UK Building Regulations Part L, achieving 40% operational carbon emission savings compared to Target Emissions Rate. The LCA solutions focused on structure, envelope, and operational systems. Embodied energy saving strategies encompassed the application of lean design principles and integration of low carbon materials. Operational energy saving techniques included the adoption of a fabric-first approach, adaptive thermal conditions and sustainable building systems. Cumulatively, these optimization strategies achieved a maximum of 16% and 13% savings on life cycle carbon and energy, respectively, compared to the original design. Embodied strategies saved 32% and 9% on embodied Carbon and energy, respectively, while operational strategies reduced the original consumption by 14% on both indicators. Over a 60-year building lifetime, operational energy was 10 times higher than embodied energy, while operational carbon was 8 times higher than embodied carbon. The study findings have highlighted the significance of LCA for early stage building design decisions. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据