umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • 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
The effect of thermal bridges on building’s annual energy usage: A comparative study of two refurbishment methods
Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Applied Physics and Electronics.
2018 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (professional degree), 20 credits / 30 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

With the European Union wanting to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, the best sector to aim to improve is the building sector. This is mainly because the building sector is responsible for 35% of the greenhouse gas emissions. One of the best ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce the building energy consumption and this can be done by refurbishing the building. An interesting improvement in this sector is the increased use of prefabricated façade elements when refurbishing a building instead of using the traditional method. Using prefabrication makes the refurbishing process faster and this will most likely lead to more people wanting to refurbish their buildings. In this project, it is tested if a prefabricated wood-based façade element called Termowood can insulate a building better than the traditional method. Because of a guideline in the BBR (Boverkets byggregler) both refurbishing methods will end up with the same U-value through the wall. Because of this U-value requirement it is realized that the only meaningful difference between the methods is the thermal bridges around the windows and it is therefore decided that the best way to get results is by using computer simulations. A model is made out of the building “Grindstugan” and it is being used for the simulations. Since the only difference between the methods was the thermal bridges, they had to be calculated and this was also done through simulations. The results revealed that the difference in insulation capabilities between the two methods were only 0.1% in favor of Termowood. This showed that the reason for using prefabrication is not for its insulating capabilities but for the other benefits that it brings, such as reduced refurbishment time, material waste and cost of transporting material to the building site.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. , p. 61
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-145324OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-145324DiVA, id: diva2:1186434
External cooperation
RISE Research Institutes of Sweden
Subject / course
Energiteknik
Educational program
Master of Science Programme in Energy Engineering
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2018-02-28 Created: 2018-02-28 Last updated: 2018-02-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

By organisation
Department of Applied Physics and Electronics
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 165 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • 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