Life cycle energy assessment of university buildings in tropical climate

被引:37
|
作者
Chang, Chia Chien [1 ]
Shi, Wenyong [1 ]
Mehta, Priyanka [1 ]
Dauwels, Justin [2 ]
机构
[1] Nanyang Technol Univ, Energy Res Inst NTU ERI N, Singapore, Singapore
[2] Nanyang Technol Univ, Sch Elect & Elect Engn, Singapore, Singapore
关键词
Embodied energy; Life cycle assessment; University building; Tropical climate; OFFICE BUILDINGS; EMBODIED ENERGY; SINGAPORE; BALANCE; CARBON; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117930
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
In recent years, there is a strong emphasis on embodied energy due to its significance in all buildings life cycle stages. Previous studies on embodied energy showed that building embodied energy ranges between 2% and 80% of total building energy. Singapore's Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has committed to achieve the vision of being the world greenest campus through various green initiatives. These include technological implementations on campus buildings to reduce its operational energy intensity. With improvement in operational energy intensity, the share of embodied energy increases. This study focused on the life cycle energy assessment of NTU's 22 academic buildings, making NTU the first university campus in Singapore and the Asia Pacific to conduct a large-scale life cycle energy investigation. Based on an assumed lifetime of 40 years, the average embodied energy for material, construction, transportation, maintenance and end of life stages constitute 1179.5 kWh/m(2) or 29.5 kWh/m(2) per year. The average operational energy is 11033.4 kWh/m(2) or 276 kWh/m(2) per year. Operational energy constitutes 90% of total life cycle energy while the remaining 10% is from embodied energy. The results provide suggestions to building professionals on ways to reduce the share of building embodied energy. These suggestions include material reusing and recycling, importing building materials from neighbouring countries and use of low carbon building materials. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings
    Chau, C. K.
    Leung, T. M.
    Ng, W. Y.
    APPLIED ENERGY, 2015, 143 : 395 - 413
  • [2] Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review
    Cabeza, Luisa F.
    Rincon, Lidia
    Vilarino, Virginia
    Perez, Gabriel
    Castell, Albert
    RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS, 2014, 29 : 394 - 416
  • [3] Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview
    Ramesh, T.
    Prakash, Ravi
    Shukla, K. K.
    ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2010, 42 (10) : 1592 - 1600
  • [4] Application of Life Cycle Energy Assessment in Residential Buildings: A Critical Review of Recent Trends
    Omrany, Hossein
    Soebarto, Veronica
    Sharifi, Ehsan
    Soltani, Ali
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2020, 12 (01)
  • [5] Indonesian residential high rise buildings: A life cycle energy assessment
    Utama, Agya
    Gheewala, Shabbir H.
    ENERGY AND BUILDINGS, 2009, 41 (11) : 1263 - 1268
  • [6] A review of evolving climate and energy economy trends to enhance the dynamic life cycle assessment of buildings
    Shanbhag, Sejal Sanjay
    Dixit, Manish Kumar
    SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY, 2024, 111
  • [7] Life cycle assessment for buildings through the ages
    Nisse, Juliane
    Holm, Andreas
    MAUERWERK, 2022, 26 (02) : 70 - 76
  • [8] Life cycle energy minimization of autonomous buildings
    Grazieschi, Gianluca
    Gori, Paola
    Lombardi, Lidia
    Asdrubali, Francesco
    JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING, 2020, 30 (30):
  • [9] An audit of life cycle energy analyses of buildings
    Yung, Ping
    Lam, Ka Chi
    Yu, Chenyun
    HABITAT INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 39 : 43 - 54
  • [10] Directionally selective shading control in maritime sub-tropical and temperate climates: Life cycle energy implications for office buildings
    Bunning, Myles E.
    Crawford, Robert H.
    BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT, 2016, 104 : 275 - 285