Use of cross laminated timber (CLT) in industrial buildings in Nordic climate – A case study
Conference object, Journal article, Peer reviewed
MetadataVis full innførsel
OriginalversjonSvortevik, Engevik MB, Kraniotis D. Use of cross laminated timber (CLT) in industrial buildings in Nordic climate – A case study. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (EES). 2020;410 https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/410/1/012082
In recent years there has been a greater interest in developing new more sustainable solutions in the construction of buildings and in particular of large commercial and industrial buildings. Thisstudy analyses the feasibility and degree of sustainability of using cross laminated timber (CLT) as building material in industrial buildings in Nordic climate. An industrial building located in Eastern Norway, MAXBO Bjertnestangen, has been used as case study for the analysis. Two scenarios have been studied: i) the first analyses the existing industrial building (Scenario 1) built in steel, and ii) the second implies that the building components are replaced with CLT-elements (Scenario 2). For the structural analysis a commercial finite element method (FEM) code has been used and the results confirm that the CLT building achieves approximately equal mechanical and structural properties. For studying building physics in the two buildings, a commercial numerical simulation tool that couples hygrothermal with energy performance and uses the finite volume method (FVM) has been employed. The results show that it is possible to achieve a total energy saving of 3.3%, for the industrial building consisting of CLT-elements compared to the existing building. Furthermore, the life cycle analysis (LCA) shows that the total emission of CO2-eq is 16.7% lower in the CLT building, however the building’s construction costs are higher 13% compared to the existing industrial building. Finally, an optimized solution has been proposed in which sandwich panels in the roof are combined with CLT in rest of the building. In this case, the difference associated with costs is narrowed to 3.3%, while the difference in the total emission of CO2-eq stays still significant, i.e. 13.6%.