Energy performance and Climate impact of different prefabricated façade system
(2022) AEBM01 20221Division of Energy and Building Design
Department of Architecture and Built Environment
- Abstract
- The objective of the degree project was to assess the average thermal transmittance and the climate impact of the façade. The studied prefabricated façade panels were the aluminium frame one, the insulated concrete sandwich and the wooden frame panel. The research approach consisted of five steps: the physical and thermal requirement of the panel was established; then the initial U-Value of each panel was calculated with a goal to have relatively comparable panels; the thermal bridges and average U-Value were assessed; at the same time Life Cycle Assessment for the designed façade from each system were evaluated; lastly, the comparative studies were conducted for alternative joints or structure in each system in both thermal performance... (More)
- The objective of the degree project was to assess the average thermal transmittance and the climate impact of the façade. The studied prefabricated façade panels were the aluminium frame one, the insulated concrete sandwich and the wooden frame panel. The research approach consisted of five steps: the physical and thermal requirement of the panel was established; then the initial U-Value of each panel was calculated with a goal to have relatively comparable panels; the thermal bridges and average U-Value were assessed; at the same time Life Cycle Assessment for the designed façade from each system were evaluated; lastly, the comparative studies were conducted for alternative joints or structure in each system in both thermal performance and climate impact aspects. The results, while specific to the designed façade, provided some insight into the differences between the three materials. The wooden frame panel had the best performance, thermal wise, followed by the aluminium frame panel and insulated concrete sandwich panel. The Life Cycle Assessments suggested that the insulated concrete sandwich panel had the lowest Global Warming Potential, while the wooden frame façade system had a slightly higher value, and the aluminium frame system had the highest Global Warming Potential – tripled that of the concrete system. The main structure for the wooden frame and aluminium frame façade proved to be very influential to the Climate Impact of each. (Less)
- Popular Abstract
- The study assessed the energy performance and climate impact of three prefabricated façade panels, with the goal to provide more information that could be useful in the decision-making process. The three prefabricated façade panels, which were available on the market, were aluminium frame panel, concrete sandwich panel and wooden frame panel. The approach in this study consisted of five distinctive steps: the study began by establishing the physical and thermal requirements of the panel, as both properties would determine the amount of material in each pane. Then, the initial thermal transmittance of each panel would be calculated to create a relatively comparable energy performance between each panel. Then in the third step, the... (More)
- The study assessed the energy performance and climate impact of three prefabricated façade panels, with the goal to provide more information that could be useful in the decision-making process. The three prefabricated façade panels, which were available on the market, were aluminium frame panel, concrete sandwich panel and wooden frame panel. The approach in this study consisted of five distinctive steps: the study began by establishing the physical and thermal requirements of the panel, as both properties would determine the amount of material in each pane. Then, the initial thermal transmittance of each panel would be calculated to create a relatively comparable energy performance between each panel. Then in the third step, the additional heat losses in the panel and where the panel connects to the main structure would be evaluated in the thermal bridge assessment. The result of this would be used to calculate the average thermal transmittance of the panel. The fourth step, happening simultaneously as the third, was to make a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of each panel and its supporting structure. While the fifth step included a comparative study of thermal bridge assessment and LCA with different main structural materials, joints and EPDs.
The results of the study suggested that the wooden frame panel system had the lowest average thermal transmittance, followed by a slightly higher value from the aluminium frame panel, and then a concrete sandwich with the highest value among the three. The lower thermal transmittance indicates better energy performance. Whereas in the LCA, the concrete panel and its supporting material were found to have the lowest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions among the three, followed by the wooden frame panel with slightly higher emissions, and then the aluminium frame panel with the highest value. Though it was explainable that the wooden frame panel had higher GHG emissions because of its main structural materials, which were steel and concrete. The study illustrated an important point that the choice of material has an impact not only on the energy performance but also on the climate impact of the building. The comparative study eventually demonstrated that while the choice of façade material was important, the choice of structural material was also crucial to the energy use and GHG emissions of the building. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9085687
- author
- Kulsomboon, Montanun LU
- supervisor
-
- Niko Gentile LU
- organization
- course
- AEBM01 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- Prefabricated façade system, Thermal transmittance, U-Value, Life Cycle Assessment, Comparative study
- language
- English
- id
- 9085687
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-09 09:20:39
- date last changed
- 2022-06-09 09:20:39
@misc{9085687,
abstract = {{The objective of the degree project was to assess the average thermal transmittance and the climate impact of the façade. The studied prefabricated façade panels were the aluminium frame one, the insulated concrete sandwich and the wooden frame panel. The research approach consisted of five steps: the physical and thermal requirement of the panel was established; then the initial U-Value of each panel was calculated with a goal to have relatively comparable panels; the thermal bridges and average U-Value were assessed; at the same time Life Cycle Assessment for the designed façade from each system were evaluated; lastly, the comparative studies were conducted for alternative joints or structure in each system in both thermal performance and climate impact aspects. The results, while specific to the designed façade, provided some insight into the differences between the three materials. The wooden frame panel had the best performance, thermal wise, followed by the aluminium frame panel and insulated concrete sandwich panel. The Life Cycle Assessments suggested that the insulated concrete sandwich panel had the lowest Global Warming Potential, while the wooden frame façade system had a slightly higher value, and the aluminium frame system had the highest Global Warming Potential – tripled that of the concrete system. The main structure for the wooden frame and aluminium frame façade proved to be very influential to the Climate Impact of each.}},
author = {{Kulsomboon, Montanun}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Energy performance and Climate impact of different prefabricated façade system}},
year = {{2022}},
}