Energy 192 (2020) 116648

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Retrofitting with different building materials: Life-cycle primary

energy implications
Chiara Piccardo a, *, Ambrose Dodoo b, Leif Gustavsson b, Uniben Tettey b
a
Department of Architecture and Design, University of Genoa, Stradone S. Agostino 37, 16123, Genoa, Italy
b €xjo
Sustainable Built Environment Research Group, Department of Built Environment and Energy Technology, Linnaeus University, Va €, SE-35195, Sweden

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The energy retrofitting of existing buildings reduces the energy use in the operation phase but the use of
Received 8 May 2019 additional materials influence the energy use in other life cycle phases of retrofitted buildings. In this
Received in revised form study, we analyse the life cycle primary energy implications of different material alternatives when
23 September 2019
retrofitting an existing building to meet high energy performance levels. We design retrofitting options
Accepted 27 November 2019
Available online 29 November 2019
assuming the highest and lowest value of final energy use, respectively, for passive house standards
applicable in Sweden. The retrofitting options include the thermal improvement of the building enve-
lope. We calculate the primary energy use in the operation phase (operation primary energy), as well as
Keywords:
Building retrofit
in production, maintenance and end-of-life phases (non-operation primary energy). Our results show
Passive house that the non-operation primary energy use can vary significantly depending on the choice of materials
Life cycle for thermal insulation, cladding systems and windows. Although the operation energy use decreases by
Primary energy use 63e78%, we find that the non-operation energy for building retrofitting accounts for up to 21% of the
Building materials operation energy saving, depending on the passive house performance level and the material alternative.
A careful selection of building materials can reduce the non-operation primary energy by up to 40%,
especially when using wood-based materials.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The building sector, accounting for 40% of the European Union’s
(EU’s) final energy use [1], plays an important role in the transition
to a sustainable energy system [2]. The EU Directive 2018/844 re-
quires minimum energy performance not only for new buildings,
but also for existing buildings liable to significant renovation, and
encourages Member States to increase the number of high energy
performance buildings [3]. The definition of high energy perfor-
mance building vary widely among European countries [4], but the
energy efficiency measures usually focus on the energy use for
water and space heating, and next on the use of renewable energy
sources and the energy use for cooling [5]. The passive house
concept is a model for high performance buildings with improved
insulation and airtightness, energy-efficient windows and heat
recovery from exhaust ventilation air [6].
Energy retrofit of existing buildings is important for a transition
to low energy built environment in the EU, as the existing building
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: chiara.piccardo@arch.unige.it (C. Piccardo).
stock is estimated to be about 70% of the 2050 building stock [7].
Furthermore, about 50% of the existing residential buildings were
built before energy efficiency standards were introduced in build-
ing codes in most EU countries, in the 1970s [8]. In Sweden, 30% of
the current building stock was built between 1961 and 1975 [9] and
these are expected to require major renovations in the coming
years [10].
The operation energy use of new and retrofitted buildings is
expected to decrease, due to implementation of energy efficiency
measures. However, this may influence the non-operation primary
energy use in the other life cycle phases of buildings. Sartori and
Hestnes [11] reviewed life cycle studies, finding that the production
energy is usually higher in high energy performance buildings than
in conventional ones. Cellura et al. [12] discussed the production
energy use in different climate zones. Chastas et al. [13] showed
that non-operation energy in passive house buildings ranges be-
tween 11 and 57% of the life cycle primary energy. This is consistent
with an average value of 25% found by Karimpour et al. [14].
Retrofitting measures typically used to meet high energy per-
formance levels usually result in increased building production
energy, but contribute to save between 30 and 80% of operation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116648
0360-5442/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648
energy in the remaining life of retrofitted buildings [15]. The rele-
vance of the non-operation energy when retrofitting an existing
building depends on the adopted retrofitting measures. A Swedish
study [16] found that the production primary energy of a building
retrofitted to meet the passive house standard ranges between 1
and 13% of the operation primary energy saving, depending on the
efficiency of the heating and energy supply systems. Similarly,
Asdrubali et al. [17] estimated that the non-operation primary en-
ergy use, including production, maintenance and end-of-life pha-
ses, of high energy performance retrofitted buildings ranges
between 6 and 13% of the operation primary energy saving,
depending on the efficiency of building systems, as well as the
amount of insulation material needed. Beccali et al. [18] found that
the non-operation energy use in high energy performance retro-
fitted buildings accounts for over 20% of the operation energy
saving. Furthermore, the thermal improvement of the building
envelope is the most relevant retrofitting measure in terms of non-
operation primary energy use. An Italian extensive study [19] on
the effectiveness of energy efficiency policies showed that the
installation of new windows results in lower net primary energy
saving compared to the extra insulation of external walls due to the
higher non-operation primary energy. Studies [20,21] also point out
efficient post-use management of building materials to reduce the
total primary energy use of retrofitting buildings.
The selection of materials in retrofitted buildings might affect
the net primary energy saving significantly. However, studies of
non-operation energy when using different material to retrofit
existing buildings are mostly lacking. The aim of this study is to
analyse the implications of using different building materials for
retrofitting existing buildings to passive house standard. The
complete life cycle in retrofitting a building is considered including
production, operation, maintenance and end-of-life, when
comparing different insulation materials, façade systems and
glazing components. The final and primary energy use, as well as
the net primary energy benefits, are calculated for each retrofitting
option.
2. Study descriptions and assumptions
2.1. Analysed building
The analysis is based on a typical 3-storey multi-family building
from the Swedish million homes programme [22], located in Ron-
neby municipality in southern Sweden. It was built in 1972, before
energy efficiency was emphasised in the Swedish building code in
1977. The heated living area of the building is 2000 m2, divided into
27 apartments, and a basement of 600 m2 below the ground level.
The load bearing structure consists of in-situ concrete frame.
The façades are insulated with 95e120 mm of mineral wool and/or
polystyrene while the basement walls are not insulated. The attic is
insulated with 120 mm mineral wool panels and can still contain
further insulation. The façades are mainly covered with bricks but
also with wood panels (East- and West-facing walls). The building
has mechanical exhaust ventilation system and is connected to the
local district heating system (DHS) providing tap water and space
heating.
2.2. Passive house standard
Different passive house criteria are recommended for improved
building energy efficiency [23]. In Sweden, three different passive
house standards can be applied on a voluntary basis: FEBY12 [24];
Wahlstro€ m et al. [25]; and Passive House Institute (PHI) [26]
(Table 1). The highest and lowest final energy use for space and tap
water heating is 50 kWh/m2 and 30 kWh/m2, respectively, in these
standards. The highest value is achievable with cost-effective ret-
rofitting measures [27] while the lowest value requires further
improvements in the building envelope. We retrofit the building to
50 kWh/m2 (PH50) or 30 kWh/m2 (PH30) final energy use for
heating.
The retrofitting measures are divided in two categories: upgrade
of technical devices for space and tap water heating; thermal
improvement of the building envelope. The initial mechanical
exhaust ventilation system is upgraded to a balanced ventilation
system with heat recovery units, with energy efficiency of fans and
ventilation heat recovery (VHR) unit of 50% and 85%, respectively,
in both passive house levels. The final energy use for tap water
heating is reduced by 40% through resource-efficient taps [27], for
both passive house levels. Electrical appliances are assumed to be
unchanged. Next, we apply extra insulation to the initial building to
achieve the PH50 and PH30 final energy use, respectively, using the
most common cost-efficient practice and starting from the base-
ment and attic areas [28,29]. The calculated insulation thickness
varies depending on the passive house level and insulation material
(Table 2). The initial air leakage rate of 0.8 l/s m2 at a pressure
difference of 50 Pa[27] is improved to 0.3 l/s m2. The initial win-
dows U-value of 2.9 W/m2K is lowered for new windows to 0.8 and
0.6 W/m2K in the PH50 and PH30 buildings, respectively.
2.3. Material alternatives
We select different materials for the thermal insulation, external
building cladding and windows. Next, we combine different ma-
terials together to compare the maximum number of retrofitting
options. The selected materials are described below.
2.3.1. Thermal insulation
Improved thermal insulation is an efficient strategy to meet high
energy-efficiency standards [30,31], also emphasised by the EU
Directive 2018/844 and national building codes [4]. This can
significantly decrease the final energy use for space heating in
retrofitted buildings, as shown in Refs. [32,33]. Nevertheless, the
use of different insulation materials affects the production primary
energy use of retrofitted buildings [34,35]. Here, we select glass
wool, rock wool and wood fibre, as common insulation materials
[29,33]. Extruded polystyrene (XPS) is selected for the basement
insulation because of its moisture resistance.
2.3.2. Building claddings
Improving thermal insulation of external walls usually entails
new building claddings. The choice of cladding materials depends
on several factors, including architectural issues, technical re-
quirements, budget and users’ perception. Only a few life cycle
analysis of buildings [20,36,37] report the primary energy use of
cladding materials, which varies depending on the material. Other
studies highlight that the production phase mainly contributes to
the energy use of cladding materials [38e40]. We select wood and
bricks, as common cladding materials used in retrofitting works in
Sweden [41], and aluminium, as an energy intensive material.
2.3.3. Energy-efficient windows
A maximum U-value of 0.8 W/m2K is recommended for win-
dows in passive houses [24,42]. The overall U-value of windows
depends on the glazing unit and window frame. The U-value of
glazing units can be improved by extra glazed panes, low-
emittance coating and high-density gas fill. Some studies [43,44]
report that triple-glazed windows have suitable U-values for pas-
sive houses. Low emittance coatings can reduce the U-value and
emittance of the glazing unit by approximately 0.1 W/m2K and 3%,
respectively [45]. Argon and krypton fillings are used in energy
 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648
Table 1
Comparison of different passive house standards applicable in Sweden.
Description Unit
Final energy use
Energy use for heating kWh/m2, year
Energy use for hot water (included in ‘Energy use for heating’) kWh/m2, year
Household electricity kWh/m , year
a
Standardised annual energy use for hot water.
b
Annual volume of used hot water.
Table 2
Adopted thermal envelope improvements for different passive house levels.
Thermal improvement Unit
Insulation - attic mm
Insulation - walls mm
Insulation e basement mm
Energy-efficient windows W/m2K
a
The insulation thickness varies within the range depending on the insulation material.
efficient windows [46,47]. The U-value of window frames can be
about 0.6e0.8 W/m2K [46,47] by using spacers with improved
thermal insulation, thermal breaks and extended glazing gaskets
[48]. Gustavsen et al. [49] show that equal thermal performance is
achievable with different frame materials. In Sweden, windows
with U-values of 0.6e0.7 W/m2K are available on the market [50],
but commercially best available technologies can improve the U-
value of windows to 0.4 W/m2K [43]. We assume U-values of
windows of 0.8 and 0.6 W/m2K for the PH50 and PH30 buildings,
respectively. The U-values of the PH50 and PH30 windows are
achievable with triple-glazed single low-e coated and argon-filled
windows and with triple-glazed double low-e coated and
krypton-filled windows, respectively. We select wood and
aluminium for window frames.
3. Method
3.1. General approach
The study integrates dynamic energy modelling and bottom-up
life cycle analysis to explore the energy implications of the different
material alternatives for building retrofitting. The dynamic energy
modelling allows design of thermally-equivalent retrofitting op-
tions for each passive house standard. Then, we use a bottom-up
approach to analyse the life cycle primary energy use of the ret-
rofitted building elements, as well as the net primary energy
benefit from material recovery. The life cycle analysis is developed
according to ISO 14040 [51] and EN 15978 [52]. We assume that
each retrofitted building element is assembled at the current time
and disassembled after 50 years.
3.2. Energy scenarios
We consider the effects from expected changes in production,
use and disposal of building materials within the life cycle of the
building being retrofitted. Therefore, we consider marginal
changes, for example, for the marginal electricity, we assume the
most likely marginal energy source of the electricity supply system
instead of its historical average energy mix. Marginal electricity in
the Nordic region is often produced by coal-based power plant
[53,54], but it is expected to be produced by fossil gas-based plants
in future [54]. Several studies assume coal as marginal source for
electricity production [33,37,55e64]. We consider electricity
3
FEBY12 €m et al.
Wahlstro PHI
(2012) (2008) (2016)
50 45
25 e 30
Evva ¼ Vvvb55 Evva ¼ Vvvb55
2
30 e e
Initial building PH50 building PH30 building
0 þ540/600a þ280/360a
0 0 þ160/170a
0 þ290 þ190/200a
2.9 0.8 0.6
produced in fossil coal-based stand-alone plants. In a sensitivity
analysis we show the impact of variation of marginal source for
electricity production, assuming fossil gas-based plants.
3.3. Dynamic energy modelling
We perform dynamic hourly energy balance calculations of the
initial and retrofitted buildings using the VIP-Energy simulation
software [65], which is validated by the International Energy
Agency Building Energy Simulation Test and diagnostic method
(IEA BESTEST). The final energy use includes space and tap water
heating, as well as electricity for ventilation. Energy for domestic
purposes is not included.
The following input data are used in the energy modelling:
hourly weather data for Ronneby in 2013 [66]; indoor air temper-
atures of 22
C and 18
C for the living and common areas,
respectively; internal heat gains from building occupants and
electrical appliances of 2.16 and 3 W/m2, respectively, with a con-
stant profile over the year; tap water heat consumption (kWh)
based on standard equation from Boverket [67], calculated to be
equal to 1800  number of apartments þ 18  heated area [m2]. More
details are given by Dodoo et al. [68], who analyse appropriate
parameter values and assumptions for energy analysis of the
studied building.
3.4. Life cycle inventory
Energy and raw material inputs for the building products are
based on the Ecoinvent database [69]. Process data include the
allocated energy use from manufacturing of infrastructure, even
though it is supposed to be marginal. Ecoinvent input of wood
products includes the solar energy embodied in biomass during its
growth, which is equal to the gross heating value of wood [70],
assumed to be based on the volume of the end product. However,
the present study does not inventory this input value, as it consists
of renewable primary energy resource used as raw materials, as
defined by EN 15804 [71] and EN 16485 [72], and has no impact on
the production energy of the retrofitting measures.
3.5. System boundaries
We analyse the complete life cycle of the retrofitted building
elements with different material alternatives, considering the
4 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648
production, operation, maintenance and end-of-life phases. We
calculate the life cycle primary energy as in equation (1).
Elife cycle ¼ Eproduction þ Eoperation þ Emaintenance þ Eend of life
3.5.1. Production phase
The production energy includes the primary energy used to
manufacture, transport and assemble the building materials. The
manufacture energy use is calculated based on a bottom up
approach by Gustavsson et al. [60], as expressed in equation (2):
XX 
Li
Eproduction ¼ Fi;k ð1 þ ak Þ þ þ Bi
i k
h delivered to the building, based on average value of Swedish district
where Eproduction is the total primary energy use for material pro-
duction (kWh); i are the individual types of materials in the
building; k is the type of fossil fuel; F is the end-use fossil fuel
energy used to extract, process and transport the materials (kWh);
a is the fuel cycle energy requirement of the fossil fuel; L is the end-
use electricity to extract, process, and transport the materials
(kWhe); h is the conversion efficiency for electricity production; B
is the heat content of the biomass recovered for energy purposes
during material processing (kWh).
The fossil fuel energy (F), the biomass (B) and electricity (L)
consumption of the building materials are based on Ecoinvent data.
But, the primary use of electricity consumption is based on adjusted
Ecoinvent data by assuming that coal is used as marginal energy
source for the electricity production. The conversion efficiency (h)
of coal-fired condensing plants is assumed to be 34.9% [73], while
distribution losses for high-voltage electricity delivered to indus-
trial facilities is assumed to be 2% [74,75].
The calculation of the material production primary energy takes
into account the wastage on the construction site, increasing the
amount of materials through the application of the following per-
centage values from Bjo €rklund and Tillman [76]: 7% for insulation
waste, 10% for wood waste, 5% for all other materials. The final
quantities of materials are summarized in Fig. 1. The primary en-
ergy used to transport and assemble building materials is calcu-
lated based on average data of 40 kWh/m2 and 80 kWh/m2,
respectively, for multi-family buildings in Sweden [77], weighted
by the relative primary energy for material production.
3.6. Bioenergy recovery
We assume forest and processing residues to be recovered for
energy purposes during the production phase of wood products.
The total tree biomass is assumed to be composed of 59% round-
wood under bark, 6% bark and 35% branches and tops, excluding
stumps and coarse roots, based on Ecoinvent flow data [70]. The
amount of roundwood under bark needed to produce sawn timber
is calculated based on a breakdown between the end product and
processing residue of 51% and 49%, respectively [70]. The
manufacturing of boards is based on industrial residual wood and
does not produce any biomass residues as co-product. The lower
heating values of the processing residues are based on Frischknecht
and Jungbluth [78] but adjusted for the Swedish context based on
[60], resulting in: 3.09 kWh/kg for forest residues, 4.17 kWh/kg for
sawing residues and 5.39 kWh/kg for planing residues. The biomass
recovery rate is assumed to be 75% for forest residues and 100% for
the processing residues. The energy used for recovery and transport
of biomass residues is diesel, corresponding to 5% and 1% of the
heat value of forest and processing residues, respectively [60]. The
relative end-use conversion efficiency between biomass and coal,
when biomass replaces fossil coal, is assumed to be 0.98.
3.6.1. Operation phase
(1) The operation primary energy includes the full chain to supply
the final energy of the building. The heat is provided by the local
DHS, which is composed of various heat-only boilers (HOBs),
including two wood chip boilers with flue gas condensers, three
wood pellet boilers and three oil boilers. The 2013 heat supply was
107 GWh [79]. Oil HOBs are used as a peak-load unit, while wood
pellets HOBs as a medium-load unit and wood chips HOBs as base-
load unit. The conversion efficiency of the DHS production is
assumed to be 90% [79], 108% [79] and 85% [80] for fuel oil, wood
chips and wood pellets units, respectively. The distribution
(2) network heat loss is assumed to be 10.7% of the overall district heat
heating systems [81]. Electricity is produced in fossil coal-based
marginal power plant and distribution loss is assumed to be 7.7%
as the average value for the Swedish electricity network between
2004 and 2013 [81]. The fuel cycle energy inputs of the energy
carriers is assumed to be 11% for oil, 3% for wood chips and 11% for
wood pellets [82].
3.6.2. Maintenance phase
The maintenance primary energy includes the energy use to
manufacture, transport and assemble the materials used to replace
or renovate worn-out elements throughout their life cycle. The
bioenergy recovery from materials’ manufacture is included. The
number of times the materials are replaced or the elements are
renovated (maintenance cycles) is based on standard service lives
for the Swedish residential building stock [83]. Building materials
to be maintained and their service lives are: painted aluminium
sheet, 50 years; clay tiles, 30 years; painted impregnated sawn
timber, 50 years; painting of aluminium parts, 10 years; painting of
wood parts, 9 years. The maintenance primary energy is calculated
by multiplying the number of maintenance cycles and the pro-
duction primary energy of each of the materials. In a sensitivity
analysis, we repeat the calculation reducing the service life of both
painted aluminium sheet and painted impregnated sawn timber
from 50 to 30 years.
3.6.3. End-of-life phase
The net end-of-life energy is calculated as the primary energy
used to sort and transport construction and demolition waste
(CDW), minus the energy saving from recycling the CDW. The pri-
mary energy use for demolition is assumed to be negligible based
on [84]. The energy use from landfilling is neglected. The following
key factors are taken into account: materials’ end-of-life option,
CDW recovery rate and CDW recycling efficiency. The most com-
mon recycling options of CDW are considered in order to analyse
the potential primary energy benefit.
3.6.3.1. Sorting phase. The sorting primary energy use is based on
adjusted Ecoinvent data accounting for coal as source of marginal
electricity. The energy use for CDW transport in the Ecoinvent data
is excluded and instead Swedish haul distances are accounted.
Recovery rates of CDW from sorting activities are expected to in-
crease in future, due to technology development and the European
waste policies. This study identifies recovery rates based on current
and future scenarios. In the current scenario, the overall CDW re-
covery is about 50%, based on 2012 Swedish statistics [85]. In the
future scenario, CDW recovery is assumed to be 95%, an average of
the following values in literature: 90% [20], 93% [86], 95% [87] and
100% [Quack, 2001 in 87].
3.6.3.2. Transport phase. The recovered waste is delivered to the
 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648 5

Fig. 1. Quantities (tons) of building materials used in PH50 and PH30 buildings.

recycling site, while the remaining and non-recoverable waste is
delivered to landfill. Backfill material (i.e. brick waste) is assumed to
be crushed at the waste processing site. The transport primary
energy use is calculated based on specific haul distances to the
nearest recovery/disposal site, assuming the Swedish waste man-
agement and production systems, as shown in Table 3.
We assumed that transportation occurs by middle-sized truck of
26 tons, travelling full to the plant with a capacity of 70%,
consuming 32 l/100 km of diesel fuel, based on NTM Road [2008, in
[90]]. However, fuel consumption of heavy-duty vehicles is ex-
pected to decrease between 41 and 52% by 2030, thanks to tech-
nology advancements in engine, lightweighting, driver assistance,
etc. Therefore, we assume diesel fuel consumption to be 15 l/
100 km at the time of the building’s demolition. The heating value
and the fuel-cycle energy use of diesel are taken to be equal to
35.3 MJ/L and 9% [82], respectively.
3.6.3.3. Recycling phase. We calculate energy benefits from recy-
cling (backfilling included) and energy recovery of waste, as the
production primary energy of the substituted primary materials
and marginal fossil fuels, respectively.
We identify materials’ end-of-life options based on the most
common practices and regulations on waste management in Swe-
den (Table 3). The recycling efficiency rate of aluminium scrap and
brick rubble is 96% [96] and 15% [84], respectively, based on average
used technology. The recycling efficiency rate of glass and mineral
wool waste is 120% [92] and about 9% based on [97], respectively,
based on best available technology. We assume glass and mineral
wool waste to be recycled only in the future scenario. Wood and
XPS waste have a lower heating value of 5.17 [60] and 9.65 kWh/kg
[43], respectively. The calculation of energy recovery of wood waste
is as described in section 3.5.1.1. XPS waste is assumed to be
incinerated in a municipal incineration plant producing electricity
with conversion efficiency of 30% [98].
4. Results
4.1. Operation energy saving
The operation annual final energy use of the initial building is
271 MWh (136 kWh/m2), including space and tap water heating,
and ventilation, and decreases by 171 MWh (86 kWh/m2 or 63%)
and 211 MWh (106 kWh/m2 or 78%) in the PH50 and PH30 build-
ings, respectively, to achieve the passive house standards of
50 kWh/m2 and 30 kWh/m2 final energy use (Table 4). The annual
heat saving from the VHR units and improved water taps are 35 and
10 kWh/m2, respectively, together accounting for 52% and 42% of
the overall final energy saving in the PH50 and PH30 buildings,
respectively. The remaining heat saving is from improved thermal
building envelope.
Fig. 2 shows the profiles of the annual final space heating de-
mands of the initial and retrofitted buildings. The peak space heat

Table 3
Haul distances and end-of-life options assumed for each construction and demolition waste.

Construction and demolition waste Transport phase Recycling phase

Haul distance [km] References End-of-life option References

Aluminium 100 [88] recycle [88]

Brick 10 [89] backfill [91]
Glassa 1000 Based on European production sites. landfill, recycle [91,92]
Mineral woola 200 Based on Swedish production sites. landfill, recycle [91,93]
Wood 90 [89] energy recovery [91,94]
XPS 90 [89] energy recovery [95]
a
Materials expected to be recycled in the future scenario.
6 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648

Table 4
Final and primary operation energy use in MWh per year (in brackets kWh per m2 heated floor area and year) of the initial building and final and primary operation energy
saving in MWh per year (in brackets kWh per m2 heated floor area and year) of the PH50 and PH30 buildings.

Description Initial building PH50 building PH30 building

Final energy use Primary energy use Final energy saving Primary energy saving Final energy saving Primary energy saving
Space heat 216 (108) 314 (157) 153 (77) 221 (111) 193 (97) 280 (140)
Tap water 50 (25) 70 (35) 20 (10) 28 (14) 20 (10) 28 (14)
Ventilation 6 (3) 15 (7) 2 (1) 5 (2) 2 (1) 5 (2)

Total 271 (136) 399 (199) ¡171 (86) 244 (123) ¡211 (106) 303 (152)

variation, as the wood-framed windows has 31% lower non-

Fig. 2. Annual profiles of final space heat demand of the initial and retrofitted
buildings, arranged in descending order.
demands of the PH50 and PH30 retrofits are 71 and 90% lower
compared to the initial building, respectively. The annual primary
energy use of the initial building is 399 MWh (199 kWh/m2) and
decreases by 244 MWh (122 kWh/m2 or 61%) and 303 MWh
(152 kWh/m2 or 76%) after the PH50 and PH30 retrofits, respec-
tively, with trends similar to the final energy savings.
4.2. PH50 retrofitting options
Table 5 shows the primary energy use of the PH50 retrofitted
building parts for the non-operation life cycle phases. The base-
ment and attic floor account for the highest share of the non-
operation primary energy, together ranging from 56 to 80%. The
lowest share corresponds to the retrofitting options with wood
fibre insulation and wood-framed windows and the highest share
to the options with glass wool insulation and aluminium-framed
windows (Fig. 3). The non-operation primary energy varies signif-
icantly for different insulation materials, with the wood fibre
insulation giving 97% lower primary energy use than the glass wool
insulation. Different window frame materials give a more moderate
operation primary energy use than aluminium-framed windows.
The production phase dominates the non-operation energy of
the building parts. Notwithstanding, end-of-life primary energy
benefit is significant for the burnable materials. End-of-life benefits
of XPS and wood fibre account for 7% and 87% of the non-operation
energy, respectively. In the windows, primary energy benefits are
mainly from the energy recovery of wood waste and the recycling
of aluminium. The end-of-life primary energy benefits of windows
are 90% and 86% from the wood and aluminium frames, alterna-
tively, while the remaining is from glass recycling. The energy re-
covery of biomass residues in the production and maintenance
phases increases the primary energy benefits of wood-framed
windows by up to 48%.
The total non-operation primary energy of the retrofitting op-
tions ranges between 629 and 1191 MWh, where the low-energy
option has wood fibre insulation and wood-framed windows and
the high-energy option has glass wool insulation and aluminium-
framed windows (Fig. 4). Retrofitting options using rock wool
insulation result in intermediate non-operation energy values. The
total non-operation primary energy follows the trend of the pro-
duction energy, accounting for between 80 and 92%. The mainte-
nance phase is not significant, ranging from 3 to 4% in the
retrofitting options with wood-framed windows and from 5 to 6%
in retrofitting options with aluminium-framed windows. The end-
of-life primary energy ranges between 3 and 14%, depending on the
primary energy benefits from the waste recovery. The end-of-life
primary energy is between 0 and -80 MWh, where the highest
benefits are from the bioenergy recovery of wood fibre insulation.
Bioenergy recovery in production and maintenance phases is sig-
nificant in wood-framed windows.
The share of non-operation primary energy use of the total
operation primary energy saving ranges between 5 and 10%. The
annual net primary energy saving, which is the operation primary
energy saving minus the non-operation primary energy use
calculated on an annual basis assuming a life span of 50 years,
ranges between 222 and 233 MWh (23 and 12 MWh compared
to the total operation energy saving, respectively), depending on
the retrofitting options.

Table 5
Primary energy use (MWh) of the PH50 building parts by non-operation life cycle phase.

Production Maintenance End of life Bioenergy recovery Total

Basement walls
XPS 398 25 27 0 396
Attic floor
Glass wool 473 0 0 0 473
Rock wool 329 0 0 0 329
Wood fibre 92 0 80 0 12
Windows
Aluminium 306 30 15 0 321
Wood 256 8 20 23 220
 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648 7

4.3. PH30 retrofitting options

Table 6 shows the primary energy use of the PH30 retrofitted

Fig. 3. Non-operation primary energy use (MWh) of the PH50 retrofitting options by
building part.
Fig. 4. Primary energy use (MWh) of the PH50 retrofitting options by non-operation
life cycle phase.
building parts for the non-operation life cycle phases. The external
walls account for the highest share of non-operation primary en-
ergy, ranging between 64% and 80%. The breakdown between
thermal insulation and cladding depends on the materials. Clad-
ding account for about 90%, 92% and 99.8% of the non-operation
energy of the external walls when thermal insulation is glass
wool, rock wool and wood fibre, respectively (Fig. 5). Windows
account for the second highest share of non-operation primary
energy, ranging between 9% and 19%, followed by basement walls
and attic floor. Thermal insulation in basement walls (i.e. XPS
insulation) accounts for 32%, 41% and 96% of the non-operation
primary energy when glass wool, rock wool or wood fibre,
respectively, are used.
Consistent with the PH50 retrofitting options, the non-
operation primary energy linked to the thermal insulation varies
significantly, depending on the material, while windows and
cladding show moderate variations. The production phase usually
dominates the non-operation energy of the building elements, with
the exception of cladding. The maintenance primary energy is
normally negligible, since minor maintenance interventions are
expected, but it accounts for 5%, 12% and 18% of the production
energy for wood, brick and aluminium claddings, respectively. The
end-of-life primary energy benefits are up to 14%, 7% and 6% of the
production primary energy for the wood, aluminium and brick
claddings, respectively. These primary energy benefits are from
energy recovery of wood, recycling of aluminium and backfilling
with brick.
The end-of-life primary energy benefit of wood cladding is
roughly three and two times greater compared to brick and
aluminium claddings, respectively. Although specific primary en-
ergy benefit from aluminium recycling (16.5 kWh/kg) is higher
compared to energy recovery of wood waste (5.3 kWh/kg), total
primary energy benefit from wood cladding is higher compared to

Table 6
Primary energy use (MWh) of the PH30 building parts by non-operation life cycle phase.

Production Maintenance End of life Bioenergy recovery Total

Basement walls
XPS (with glass wool)a 225 25 14 0 236
XPS (with rock wool)a 213 25 13 0 225
XPS (with wood fibre)a 213 25 13 0 225
Attic floor
Glass wool 283 0 0 0 283
Rock wool 170 0 0 0 170
Wood fibre 49 0 43 0 6
Windows
Aluminium 352 30 15 0 368
Wood 300 8 20 23 265
External walls
Insulation
Glass wool 218 0 0 0 218
Rock wool 157 0 0 0 157
Wood fibre 41 0 37 0 4
Cladding
Aluminium (with glass wool)a 1815 328 123 0 2020
Aluminium (with rock wool)a 1798 328 126 0 2000
Aluminium (with wood fibre)a 1793 328 121 0 2000
Brick (with glass wool)a 1790 216 106 0 1900
Brick (with rock wool)a 1762 216 108 0 1870
Brick (with wood fibre)a 1758 216 104 0 1870
Wood (with glass wool)a 1660 86 225 161 1360
Wood (with rock wool)a 1631 86 220 157 1340
Wood (with wood fibre)a 1627 86 196 157 1360
a
The selected insulation materials in the external walls and their corresponding thermal performance influence the quantity, as well as the primary energy use, of the
materials in the basement walls and the cladding.
8 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648
Fig. 5. Non-operation primary energy use (MWh) of the PH30 retrofitting options by
building part.
aluminium cladding due to the material quantity. In the cladding
category, the low-energy option is wood. Bioenergy recovery in the
production phase increases the primary energy benefits in wood
claddings by up to 80%.
Fig. 6 shows the total non-operation primary energy of the PH30
retrofitting options. The values range between 1861 and
Fig. 6. Primary energy use (MWh) of the PH30 retrofitting options by non-operation life cycle phase.
3129 MWh, where the low-energy option has wood fibre insu-
lation, wood cladding and wood-framed windows and the high-
energy option has glass wool insulation, aluminium cladding and
aluminium-framed windows. Retrofitting options using rock wool
insulation result in intermediate non-operation energy values with
variations depending on the cladding and window frame materials.
The total production primary energy ranges between 2231 and
2898 MWh, where the low- and high-energy retrofitting options
are consistent with the non-operation primary energy results. The
total production primary energy accounts for between 86% and 95%
of the non-operation primary energy use. The total maintenance
primary energy is between 119 and 384 MWh, accounting for 5e7%,
9e11% and 12e15% of the net non-operation energy use for the
retrofitting options with wood, brick and aluminium cladding,
respectively. The total end-of-life energy is between 308
and 135 MWh, accounting for 4e8%, 5e9% and 10e17% of the
non-operation energy in the retrofitting options with brick,
aluminium and wood cladding, respectively. Bioenergy recovery in
the production phase gives 10% of the non-operation energy in the
wood-maximised option.
The share of non-operation primary energy use of the total
operation primary energy saving for the PH30 retrofitting options is
between 12% and 21%. The annual net primary energy saving ranges
between 241 and 267 MWh (63 and 37 MWh compared to the
 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648 9

Table 7
Non-operation primary energy use (MWh) of the PH30 building claddings with a service live of 30 years for aluminium and wood claddings.

Production Maintenance End of life Bioenergy recovery Total

Cladding
Aluminium (with glass wool) 1817 1046 173 0 2690
Aluminium (with rock wool) 1793 1045 178 0 2660
Aluminium (with wood fibre) 1796 1045 171 0 2670
Wood (with glass wool) 1662 823 335 250 1900
Wood (with rock wool) 1624 822 330 246 1870
Wood (with wood fibre) 1629 822 305 246 1900

total operation energy saving, respectively), depending on the Table 8

retrofitting options. Total non-operation primary energy use (MWh) of the PH30 retrofitting options
with a service live of 30 years for aluminium and wood claddings.

Basement walls Attic floor Windows External walls Total

5. Sensitivity analysis
Insulation Insulation Window frame Insulation Cladding
XPS Glass wool Aluminium Glass wool Aluminium 3800
5.1. Maintenance cycle of building claddings
XPS Glass wool Aluminium Glass wool Wood 3000
XPS Glass wool Wood Glass wool Aluminium 3700
Our reference building is situated in a normal condition and the XPS Glass wool Wood Glass wool Wood 2900
service life of the aluminium and wood claddings is expected to be XPS Rock wool Aluminium Rock wool Aluminium 3600
50 years as the assumed remaining lifetime of the building. How- XPS Rock wool Aluminium Rock wool Wood 2800
XPS Rock wool Wood Rock wool Aluminium 3500
ever, in exposed conditions, the service life of aluminium and wood XPS Rock wool Wood Rock wool Wood 2700
claddings might be reduced significantly, resulting in the substi- XPS Wood fibre Aluminium Wood fibre Aluminium 3300
tution of worn-out claddings once in the life span of the PH30 XPS Wood fibre Aluminium Wood fibre Wood 2500
retrofitted building. Tables 7 and 8 show the non-operation pri- XPS Wood fibre Wood Wood fibre Aluminium 3200
XPS Wood fibre Wood Wood fibre Wood 2400
mary energy use when the building claddings are in exposed
condition with a service life of 30 years.
The maintenance primary energy of aluminium and wood
claddings increases by 33% and 40%, respectively, because of the benefits from the waste recovery when using fossil gas instead of
need to produce, transport and assemble new claddings coal electricity. However, the reduction of net primary energy use of
substituting worn-out ones. The changes in maintenance primary the wood cladding is 30% higher if compared to the brick cladding,
energy increase the total non-operation primary energy use of the because of the material quantity (Fig. 8).
aluminium- and wood-cladded retrofitting options by 21e27% and
22e29%, respectively. This results in higher non-operation primary
6. Discussion
energy use of the wood-cladded retrofitting options compared to
brick-cladded ones.
The results of this study show that the thermal improvement of
The share of non-operation primary energy use of the total
the building envelope is indispensable to achieve high-energy ef-
operation primary energy saving for the PH30 retrofitting options
ficiency standard in retrofitted buildings. Although the operation
increases by about 21% and 29% for aluminium- and wood-cladded
energy still significantly contributes to the life cycle energy use of
options, respectively.
both the PH50 and PH30 buildings, the non-operation energy used
to retrofit the PH50 and PH30 buildings accounts for 5e10% (8%, on
5.2. Energy supply for retrofitted buildings average) and 12e21% (17%, on average) of the operation primary
energy saving over a life span of 50 years, respectively. Based on
The effects of changed electricity production from fossil coal to material choice giving the highest net primary energy savings, the
gas in stand-alone plants on the primary energy for non-operation net primary energy saving of the PH50 and PH30 retrofitting op-
life cycle phases are shown in Tables 9 and 10 for the PH50 retro- tions are 11606 and 13325 MWh, respectively. Using rock or glass
fitting options and Tables 11 and 12 for the PH30 retrofitting op- wool for insulation instead of wood fibre reduces the net savings by
tions, respectively. Using fossil gas instead of coal reduces the 3 and 4%, respectively for the PH50 option. The corresponding
production and maintenance primary energy use for the building numbers for the PH30 option are 2 and 4%. Based on material choice
materials, due to the higher conversion efficiency of gas-fired giving the lowest net primary energy savings, the net primary
plants, assumed to be 44.3% [73]. The estimated primary energy
benefits from waste (i.e. XPS) and biomass recovery decrease as
these products are assumed to replace fossil gas instead of coal. Table 9
Primary energy changes (MWh) of the PH50 building parts when changing from
In the PH50 retrofitting options, the primary energy trend is
fossil coal to gas electricity, by non-operation life cycle phase.
unchanged. However, the net primary energy use reduces by 3%, 5%
and 7% for the retrofitting options with wood fibre, rock wool and Production Maintenance End of life Bioenergy recovery Total

glass wool insulation in the attic floor, respectively (Fig. 7). Basement walls
In the PH30 retrofitting options, the net primary energy use is XPS 11 3 6 0 ¡9
Attic floor
reduced by about 8%, 9% and 13% for the aluminium, brick and
Glass wool 48 0 0 0 ¡49
wood claddings, respectively, when using fossil gas instead of coal Rock wool 16 0 0 0 ¡16
based electricity. Claddings account for an average of 80% of the Wood fibre 8 0 16 0 8
primary energy variation due to the material quantities. Net pri- Windows
mary energy use is lower for aluminium and wood claddings than Aluminium 21 1 0 0 ¡23
Wood 28 1 4 5 ¡20
for brick cladding per material quantity, due to the lower energy
10 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648

Table 10 energy saving of the PH50 and PH30 retrofitting options are 11109
Total non-operation primary energy changes (MWh) of the PH50 retrofitting options and 12070 MWh, respectively. This supports the initial assumption
when changing from fossil coal to gas electricity.
that retrofitting options for existing buildings need to be analysed
Basement walls Attic floor Windows Total PE in a life cycle perspective. Furthermore, the electricity supply sys-
Insulation Insulation Window frame tem can affect the impact of energy-efficient envelope measures
XPS Glass wool Aluminium 81 significantly. When using electricity from gas-fired, power plant,
XPS Glass wool Wood 78 the net primary energy savings decrease somewhat for the PH30
XPS Rock wool Aluminium 48
retrofitting options but are still between 6 and 22% higher
XPS Rock wool Wood 45
XPS Wood fibre Aluminium 24 compared to the PH50 retrofitting options.
XPS Wood fibre Wood 21 The PH30 retrofitting options use up to 2524 MWh more energy
in the production and maintenance phases and recover up to
267 MWh more of energy in the end-of-life phase than the PH50
Table 11 retrofitting options. This is because the PH30 building includes
Primary energy changes (MWh) of the PH30 building parts when changing from additional retrofitting measures increasing the material quantities
fossil coal to gas electricity, by non-operation life cycle phase. for thermal insulation, cladding and windows. In the PH50 retro-
Production Maintenance End of Bioenergy Total fitting options, the choice of the attic insulation materials in-
life recovery fluences the primary energy balances by up to 73%. In the PH30
Basement walls retrofitting options, cladding materials affect the primary energy
XPS (with glass wool) 7 3 3 0 ¡7 balances more than insulation materials, accounting for between
XPS (with rock wool) 7 3 3 0 ¡7 55 and 80% of the non-operation energy. The highest share corre-
XPS (with wood fibre) 7 3 3 0 ¡7
spond to the use of aluminium cladding together with wood fibre
Attic floor
Glass wool 29 0 0 0 ¡29 insulation and wood-framed windows.
Rock wool 9 0 0 0 ¡9 The production phase accounts for the highest share of life cycle
Wood fibre 5 0 9 0 4 non-operation primary energy use for both the PH50 and PH30
Windows building retrofitting options. In the PH50 options the production
Aluminium 27 1 1 0 ¡27
Wood 33 1 4 5 ¡25
energy for insulation materials give the largest net primary energy
External walls use, while in the PH30 options the results are variable due to the
Insulation use of a larger number of materials. In both PH50 and PH30 ret-
Glass wool 22 0 0 0 ¡22 rofitting options, a maximum use of wood materials gives the
Rock wool 8 0 0 0 ¡8
lowest net primary energy use. This is due to the low production
Wood fibre 4 0 8 0 4
Cladding energy of wood and to the energy recovery of woody biomass from
Aluminium (with glass 180 14 3 0 ¡191 manufacture, construction and demolition activities.
wool0029 The maintenance primary energy is negligible in the PH50 ret-
Aluminium (with rock 178 14 3 0 ¡189 rofitting options but not for PH30 retrofitting options. Maintenance
wool)
Aluminium (with wood 178 14 3 0 ¡189
primary energy mainly depends on the service lives of building
fibre) elements, especially for cladding materials. For buildings in
Brick (with glass wool) 174 13 2 0 ¡185 exposed conditions, the expected service life of aluminium and
Brick (with rock wool) 171 13 2 0 ¡182 wood claddings may be shorter than the expected remaining life-
Brick (with wood fibre) 171 13 2 0 ¡182
time of the building in contrast to brick cladding. This results in
Wood (with glass wool) 316 4 46 33 ¡241
Wood (with rock wool) 310 4 45 32 ¡237 higher primary energy balance also for the wood-cladded options,
Wood (with wood 310 4 40 32 ¡242 compared to the brick-cladded options, as shown in the sensitivity
fibre) analysis. Finally, maximising CDW recovery for recycling or energy

Table 12
Total non-operation primary energy changes (MWh) of the PH30 retrofitting options when changing from fossil coal to gas electricity.

Basement walls Attic floor Windows External walls Total

Insulation Insulation Window frame Insulation Cladding

XPS Glass wool Aluminium Glass wool Aluminium 276
XPS Glass wool Aluminium Glass wool Brick 270
XPS Glass wool Aluminium Glass wool Wood 326
XPS Glass wool Wood Glass wool Aluminium 274
XPS Glass wool Wood Glass wool Brick 268
XPS Glass wool Wood Glass wool Wood 324
XPS Rock wool Aluminium Rock wool Aluminium 240
XPS Rock wool Aluminium Rock wool Brick 233
XPS Rock wool Aluminium Rock wool Wood 288
XPS Rock wool Wood Rock wool Aluminium 238
XPS Rock wool Wood Rock wool Brick 231
XPS Rock wool Wood Rock wool Wood 286
XPS Wood fibre Aluminium Wood fibre Aluminium 215
XPS Wood fibre Aluminium Wood fibre Brick 208
XPS Wood fibre Aluminium Wood fibre Wood 268
XPS Wood fibre Wood Wood fibre Aluminium 213
XPS Wood fibre Wood Wood fibre Brick 206
XPS Wood fibre Wood Wood fibre Wood 266
 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648
Fig. 7. Total non-operation primary energy use (MWh) of the PH50 retrofitting options
when using fossil coal or gas electricity.
purposes gives primary energy benefits. The use of wood-based
materials results in wood waste that can be recovered for energy
purposes in the production, maintenance and end-of-life-phases.
The non-wood materials can be incinerated for energy purposes
(e.g. XPS) or recycled. Assuming the most common waste disposal
practices for the building materials, recycling usually gives primary
energy benefits, especially for metal scraps. The primary energy
benefits from the recovery of inert materials is minor, since the
primary energy used to recover clay elements is typically higher
than the benefits from the avoided production of primary aggre-
gates. This is mainly because of the energy use for crushing oper-
ations and the losses of crushed material [58]. The variations in
primary energy use and recovery between the PH50 and PH30
buildings are also dependent on the area of the overall extra-
insulation layer and on the surface area to volume ratio. This
could be explored by studying different building types.
The ratio between non-operation primary energy use and total
Fig. 8. Total non-operation primary energy use (MWh) of the PH30 retrofitting options when using fossil coal or gas electricity.
11
operation primary energy saving for the PH30 is higher than for the
PH50 retrofitting options. However, when comparing the annual
net primary energy saving of the PH30 and PH50 retrofitting op-
tions, the low-energy PH30 retrofitting option results in 20% higher
net primary energy savings than the high-energy PH50 retrofitting
option, but the high-energy PH30 retrofitting option has only 3%
higher net primary energy savings than the low-energy PH50 ret-
rofitting option.
7. Conclusions
Energy retrofit of existing buildings is important for a transition
to low energy built environment. Here, the operation primary en-
ergy use of the analysed building could be reduced by 12235 and
15186 MWh for the PH50 and PH30 options, respectively, during
the expected remaining lifetime of the building of 50 years.
Building materials are mostly responsible for the non-operation
primary energy use when the thermal envelope is improved. This
is consistent with the mentioned Refs [17e19]. Our results show
that the non-operation primary energy use can vary significantly,
between 629 and 1191 MWh in PH50 building and between 1861
and 3129 MWh in PH30 building, depending on the choice of ma-
terials for thermal insulation, cladding systems and energy-
efficient windows. Consequently, the net primary energy savings
from building retrofitting can vary significantly, especially in the
retrofitted buildings with high energy performance levels, due to
the larger amount of materials used for building retrofitting. The
estimated net primary energy saving is between 5 and 21%, which
is similar to the results of previous studies [16e18]. Using wood can
be decisive to achieve low non-operation primary energy use,
especially if biomass residues from wood production are recovered
for energy purposes. Furthermore, the impact on the non-operation
energy use of retrofitted buildings is largest when wood materials
is used in those building parts with the highest material quantity, as
building cladding and thermal insulation. Design strategies should
pay attention to the durability of building materials to reduce
maintenance need. Finally, both the energy recovery of burnable
materials and the recycling of non-burnable materials in the end-
of-life phase save primary energy and raw material resources.
However, the amount of savings from energy recovery and recy-
cling of CDW depends on the technology development and waste
12 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648
policies. The primary energy benefits from the recovery of inert
materials is usually minor, since the primary energy used to recover
the post-use concrete or clay elements is typically higher than the
benefits from the avoided production of primary aggregates. Design
for disassembly is a promising approach to improve the recovery
rate of CDW. The non-operation primary energy saving due to both
energy recovery and recycling of building materials in the end-of-
life phase is up to 17%. In summary, a life cycle perspective and
good design practices could help select suitable building materials,
which are compatible with architectural and technical re-
quirements while minimising non-operation primary energy use.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from
Stiftelsen C.M. Lerici (Stockholm, Sweden).
References
[1] European Commission. Green-paperdtowards a European strategy for the
security of energy supply. COM; 2000. p. 769. final; 2000.
[2] European Parliament and Council. Directive 2018/2002 of 11 December 2018
amending Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency. PE/54/2018/REV/1. Off J
Eur, L 328; 2018.
[3] European Parliament and Council. Directive 2018/844 of 30 May 2018
amending Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings and
Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency. PE/4/2018/REV/1. Off J Eur, L
2018;156.
[4] Hermelink A, Schimschar S, Boermans T, Pagliano L, Zangheri P, Armani R,
Voss K, Musall E. Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: definition of common
principles under the EPBD. Ecofys. 2013. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu.
[Accessed 22 March 2019].
[5] Annunziata E, Frey M, Rizzi F. Towards nearly zero-energy buildings: the
state-of-art of national regulations in Europe. Energy 2013;57:125e33.
[6] Schnieders J, Feist W, Rongen L. Passive Houses for different climate zones.
Energy Build 2015;105:71e87.
[7] Visscher H, Sartori I, Dascalaki E. Towards an energy efficient European
housing stock: monitoring, mapping and modelling retrofitting processes:
special issue of Energy and Buildings. Energy Build 2016;132:1e3.
[8] European Commission. EU buildings factsheets. Available at: https://ec.
europa.eu/energy/en/eu-buildings-factsheets. [Accessed 22 March 2019].
[9] Viden S. Rekordarens bosta €der e en viktig resurs fo€ r hallbar utveckling. In:
Johansson B, editor. Millionprogrammet e avveckla eller utveckla? Stock-
holm: Forskningsradet Formas; 2012. p. 21e44.
n S. The Million Homes Programme: a review of the great Swedish
[10] Hall T, Vide
planning project. Plan Perspect 2005;20:301e28.
[11] Sartori I, Hestnes AG. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-
energy buildings: a review article. Energy Build 2007;39:249e57.
[12] Cellura M, Guarino F, Longo S, Mistretta M. Energy life-cycle approach in Net
zero energy buildings balance: operation and embodied energy of an Italian
case study. Energy Build 2014;72:371e81.
[13] Chastas P, Theodosiou T, Bikas D. Embodied energy in residential buildings-
towards the nearly zero energy building: a literature review. Build Environ
2016;105:267e82.
[14] Karimpour M, Belusko M, Xing K, Bruno F. Minimising the life cycle energy of
buildings: review and analysis. Build Environ 2014;73:106e14.
[15] Vilches A, Garcia-Martinez A, Sanchez-Montan ~ es B. Life cycle assessment
(LCA) of building refurbishment: a literature review. Energy Build 2017;135:
286e301.
[16] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Life cycle primary energy implication of
retrofitting a wood-framed apartment building to passive house standard.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2010;54:1152e60.
[17] Asdrubali F, Ballarini I, Corrado V, Evangelisti L, Grazieschi G, Guattari C. En-
ergy and environmental payback times for an NZEB retrofit. Build Environ
2019;147:461e72.
[18] Beccali M, Cellura M, Fontana M, Longo S, Mistretta M. Energy retrofit of a
single-family house: life cycle net energy saving and environmental benefits.
̊
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;27:283e93. ̊ [48] Van Den Bossche N, Buffel L, Janssens A. Thermal optimization of window
[19] Cellura M, Guarino F, Longo S, Mistretta M, Orioli A. The role of the building
sector for reducing̊energy consumption and greenhouse gases: an Italian case
study. Renew Energy 2013;60:586e97.
[20] Thormark C. A low energy building in a life cycledits embodied energy, en-
ergy need for operation and recycling potential. Build Environ 2002;37:
429e35.
[21] Blengini GA, Di Carlo T. The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and
materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy Build 2010;42:869e80.
[22] Stenberg E, editor. Structural systems of the million program era. Stockholm:
KTH School of Architecture; 2013.
[23] International Energy Agency. Energy efficiency requirements in building
codes, energy efficiency policies for new buildings. IEA Information Paper.
OECD/IEA; 2008. Available at: https://www.iea.org. [Accessed 22 March
2019].
[24] FEBY 12. Kravspecifikation fo €r nollenergihus, passivhus och minienergihus.
Sveriges centrum fo €r nollenergihus. 2012. Available at: http://www.nollhus.
se. [Accessed 22 March 2019].
[25] Wahlstro € m A, Ruud S, Erlandsson M, Norrman J, Sandberg E, Wall M, Eek H.
A classification of passive house for Swedish conditions. Proceedings of the
first nordic conference on passive houses, vols. 2e3; 2008. p. 1e5. Apr,
Trondheim, Norway, http://www.nollhus.se. [Accessed 9 February 2018].
[26] Passive House Institute. Criteria for the passive house, EnerPHit and PHI low
energy building standard. 2016. Darmstadt, Germany, http://www.passiv.de.
[Accessed 22 March 2019].
[27] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Tettey UYA. Final energy savings and cost-
effectiveness of deep energy renovation of a multi-storey residential build-
ing. Energy 2017;135:563e76.
[28] Nair G, Gustavsson L, Mahapatra K. Factors influencing energy efficiency in-
vestments in existing Swedish residential buildings. Energy Policy 2010;38:
2956e63.
[29] Nair G, Gustavsson L, Mahapatra K. Owners perception on the adoption of
building envelope energy efficiency measures in Swedish detached houses.
Appl Energy 2010;87:2411e9.
[30] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Climate change 2014:
mitigation, contribution of working group III to the fifth assessment report of
the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press; 2014.
[31] Nemry F, Uihlein A, Colodel CM, Wetzel C, Braune A, Wittstock B, et al. Options
to reduce the environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European
Uniondpotential and costs. Energy Build 2010;42:976e84.
[32] Rodrigues C, Freire F. Integrated life-cycle assessment and thermal dynamic
simulation of alternative scenarios for the roof retrofit of a house. Build En-
viron 2014;81:204e15.
̊
[33] Tettey UYA, Dodoo A, Gustavsson L. Effects of different insulation materials on
primary energy and CO2 emission of a multi-storey residential building. En-
ergy Build 2014;82:369e77.
[34] Pargana N, Pinheiro MD, Silvestre JD, de Brito J. Comparative environmental
life cycle assessment of thermal insulation materials of buildings. Energy Build
2014;82:466e81.
[35] Schiavoni S, D‫׳‬Alessandro F, Bianchi F, Asdrubali F. Insulation materials for the
building sector: a review and comparative analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;62:988e1011.
[36] Thormark C. The effect of material choice on the total energy need and
recycling potential of a building. Build Environ 2006;41:1019e26.
[37] Radhi H. On the optimal selection of wall cladding system to reduce direct and
indirect CO2 emissions. Energy 2010;35:1412e24.
[38] Monteiro H, Freire F. Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exte-
rior walls: comparison of three impact assessment methods. Energy Build
2012;47:572e83.
[39] Taborianski VM, Prado RTA. Methodology of CO2 emission evaluation in the
life cycle of office building façades. EIA Review 2012;33:41e7.
[40] Han B, Wang R, Yao L, Liu H, Wang Z. Life cycle assessment of ceramic façade
material and its comparative analysis with three other common façade ma-
terials. J Clean Prod 2015;99:86e93.
[41] Ekstro€m T, Bernardo R, Å Blomsterberg. Cost-effective passive house reno-
vation packages for Swedish single-family houses from the 1960s and 1970s.
Energy Build 2018;161:89e102.
[42] Feist W, Schnieders J, Dorer V, Haas A. Re-inventing air heating: convenient
and comfortable within the frame of the Passive House concept. Energy Build
2005;37:1186e203.
[43] Harvey LDD. Energy and the new reality 1. Energy efficiency and the demand
for energy services. London: Earthscan; 2010.
[44] Schnieders J, Hermelink A. CEPHEUS results: measurements and occupants’
satisfaction provide evidence for Passive Houses being an option for sus-
tainable building. Energy Policy 2006;34:151e71.
[45] Karlsson J, Roos A. Annual energy window performance vs. glazing thermal
emittance d the relevance of very low emittance values. Thin Solid Films
2001;392:345e8.
[46] Gustavsen A, Grynning S, Arasteh D, Jelle BP, Goudey H. Key elements of and
material performance targets for highly insulating window frames. Energy
Build 2011;43:2583e94.
[47] Jelle BP. Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation
materials and solutions e properties, requirements and possibilities. Energy
Build 2011;43:2549e63.
frames. Energy Procedia 2015;78:2500e5.
[49] Gustavsen A, Jelle BP, Arasteh D, Kohler C. State-of-the-Art highly insulating
window frames e research and market review. Oslo, Norway: INTEF Building
and Infrastructure; 2007. Available at: https://windows.lbl.gov. [Accessed 9
February 2018].
[50] Kiss B, Neij L. The importance of learning when supporting emergent
 C. Piccardo et al. / Energy 192 (2020) 116648
technologies for energy efficiencyda case study on policy intervention for
learning for the development of energy efficient windows in Sweden. Energy
Policy 2011;39:6514e24.
[51] ISO 14040. Environmental managementdlife cycle assessmentdprinciples
and framework. Geneva: International Organisation for Standardisation;
2006.
[52] EN 15978. Sustainability of construction works d assessment of environ-
mental performance of buildings d calculation method. Brussels: European
Committee for Standardization; 2011.
[53] Swedish Energy Agency. Marginal elproduktion och CO2-utsla €pp. 2002.
Available at: http://www.energimyndigheten.se. [Accessed 22 March 2019].
[54] Skovgaard M, Karin I, Tomas E. Nordic guideline for costebenefit analysis in
waste management. Temanord 2007;574. Copenhagen, Denmark: Nordic
Council of Ministers; 2007.
[55] Eriksson P-E. Comparative LCAs for wood construction and other construction
methods. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Wood Association; 2003. Available at:
http://support.sbcindustry.com/Archive/2004/jun/Paper_032.pdf. [Accessed
22 March 2019].
[56] Gustavsson L, Pingoud K, Sathre R. Carbon dioxide balance of wood substi-
tution: comparing concrete- and wood-framed buildings. Mitig Adapt Stra-
tegies Glob Change 2006;11:667e91.
[57] Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Variability in energy and carbon dioxide balances of
wood and concrete building materials. Build Environ 2006;41:940e51.
[58] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Carbon implications of end-of-life man-
agement of building materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 2009;53:276e86.
[59] Gustavsson L, Joelsson A. Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential
buildings. Energy Build 2010;42:210e20.
[60] Gustavsson L, Joelsson A, Sathre R. Life cycle primary energy use and carbon
emission of an eight-storey wood-framed apartment building. Energy Build
2010;42:230e42.
[61] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Building energy-efficiency standards in a life
cycle primary energy perspective. Energy Build 2011;43:1589e97.
[62] Gustavsson L, Dodoo A, Truong NL, Danielski I. Primary energy implications of
end-use energy efficiency measures in district heated buildings. Energy Build
2011;43:38e48.
[63] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L. Life cycle primary energy use and carbon footprint of
wood-frame conventional and passive houses with biomass-based energy
supply. Appl Energy 2013;112:834e42.
[64] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Lifecycle carbon implications of conventional
and low-energy multi-storey timber building systems. Energy Build 2014;82:
194e210.
[65] StruSoft. VIPþ software. 2012. Sweden, Version 2.1.0.
[66] Meteotest. Meteonorm global meteorological database, V7.1.1.122. Meteotest;
2015.
[67] Boverket. Termiska Era €kningar. Karlskrona. Sweden: The National Board of
Housing, Building and Planning; 2003.
[68] Dodoo A, Tettey UYA, Gustavsson L. Influence of simulation assumptions and
input parameters on energy balance calculations of residential buildings.
Energy 2017;120:718e30.
[69] Swiss centre for life cycle inventories. Ecoinvent v.2.2. 2010. Switzerland.
[70] Werner F, Althaus H-J, Künniger T, Richter K, Jungbluth N. Life cycle in-
ventories of wood as fuel and construction material: final report ecoinvent No.
9. Dübendorf, Swiss. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories; 2007.
[71] EN 15804. Sustainability of construction worksdenvironmental product
declarationsdcore rules for the product category of construction products.
Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2012.
[72] EN 16485. Round and sawn timberdenvironmental product declaration-
sdproduct category rules for wood and wood-based products for use in
construction. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2014.
[73] Truong NL, Dodoo A, Gustavsson L. Effects of energy efficiency measures in
district-heated buildings on energy supply. Energy 2018;142:1114e27.
[74] Vattenfall AB. Life cycle assessment e vattenfall’s electricity generation in the
nordic countries. 2012. Available at: https://corporate.vattenfall.com.
[Accessed 9 February 2018].
[75] Tettey UYA, Dodoo A, Gustavsson L. Primary energy implications of different
design strategies for an apartment building. Energy 2016;104:132e48.
[76] Bjo€ rklund T, Tillman A-M. LCA of building frame structures: environmental
impact over the life cycle of wooden and concrete frames. Technical Envi-
ronmental Planning Report 1997vol. 2. Go € teborg, Sweden: Chalmers Univer-
sity of Technology; 1997.
13
[77] Adalberth K, Almgren A, Holleris PE. Energy use in four multi-family buildings
during their life cycle. Int J Low Energy Sustain Build 2001;2:1e21.
[78] Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, editors. Overview and methodology: ecoinvent
report No. 1. Dübendorf, Swiss. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories; 2007.
[79] Truong NL, Gustavsson L. Cost and primary energy efficiency of small-scale
district heating systems. Appl Energy 2014;130:419e27.
[80] Danish Energy Agency. Technology data for energy plants: individual heating
plants and energy transport. 2013. Available at: https://ens.dk. [Accessed 22
March 2019].
[81] Swedish Energy Agency. Energy in Sweden. 2015. Available at: http://www.
energimyndigheten.se. [Accessed 22 March 2019].
€
[82] Gode J, Martinsson F, Hagberg L, Oman €glund J, Palm D, Miljo
A, Ho € faktaboken.
Uppskattade emissionsfaktorer fo € r bra
€nslen, el, va €rme och transporter.
Stockholm, Sweden: Va €rmeforsk; 2011. 2011. Available at: https://
energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/17907/miljoefaktaboken-
2011-vaermeforskrapport-1183.pdf. [Accessed 22 March 2019].
[83] Erlandsson M, Holm D. Livsla €ngdsdata samt atervinningsscenarion fo € r mer
transparenta och ja €mfo€rbara livscykelbera€kningar fo € r byggnader. Rapport NR
B B2229. Stockholm, Sweden: IVL Svenska Miljo €institutet; 2015.
[84] Doka G. Life cycle inventories of waste treatment services, ecoinvent report
No. 13. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories; 2009. Dübendorf, Swiss.
[85] Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Från avfallshantering till resur-
shushållning. Sveriges avfallsplan 2012e2017. 2012. Available at: https://
www.naturvardsverket.se. [Accessed 22 March 2019].
[86] Arm M, Wik O, Engelsen CJ, Erlandsson M, Hjelmar O, Wahlstro €m M. How
does the European recovery target for construction & demolition waste affect
resource management? Waste Biomass Valor 2017;8:1491e504.
[87] Thormark C. Conservation of energy and natural resources by recycling
building waste. Resour Conserv Recycl 2001;33:113e30.
[88] Fråne A, Hulte n J, Sundqvist J-O, Viklund L. Framtida avfallsma €ngder och
avfallsbehandlingskapacitet. SMED Rapport 2017:1. Norrko €ping. Sweden:
Sveriges Meteorologiska och Hydrologiska Institut; 2006.
[89] Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Behandlingsanla €ggningar. Bilaga
till nationella avfallsplanen. 2012. Available at: http://www.naturvardsverket.
se/on. [Accessed 9 February 2018].
[90] Hoen KMR, Tan T, Fransoo JC, van Houtum GJ. Effect of carbon emission
regulations on transport mode selection under stochastic demand. Flex Serv
Manuf J 2014;26:170e95.
[91] Byggindustrier Sveriges. Resource and waste guidelines during construction
and demolition. 2015. Available at: https://publikationer.
sverigesbyggindustrier.se. [Accessed 22 March 2019].
[92] Hestin M, de Veron S, Burgos S. Economic study on recycling of building glass
̊
in Europe. 2016. Available at: http://www.glassforeurope.com. [Accessed 22
March 2019].
[93] Va€ntsi O, Ka€rki T. Mineral wool waste in Europe: a review of mineral wool
waste quantity, quality, and current recycling methods. J Mater Cycles Waste
Manag 2014;16:62e72.
[94] Ministry of the Environment and Energy. Fo €rordning (2001:512) om depo-
nering av avfall. 2001. Available at: https://www.riksdagen.se. [Accessed 22
March 2019].
[95] Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Information Facts. CFC in building
and demolition waste. 2016. Available at: https://www.naturvardsverket.se.
[Accessed 22 March 2019].
[96] European Aluminium Association. Recycling aluminium. A pathway to a
sustainable economy. 2016. Available at: https://european-aluminium.eu.
[Accessed 22 March 2019].
[97] European Commission. PAROC-WIM, waste injection into the melting furnace
in stone wool production. LIFE02 ENV/FIN/000328. Available at: http://ec.
europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/. [Accessed 22 March 2019].
[98] Danish Energy Agency. Technology data for energy plants: generation of
electricity and district heating, energy storage and energy carrier genera on
and conversion. 2012. Available at: https://ens.dk. [Accessed 22 March 2019].
Abbreviations
PH50: Reference building retrofitted to 50 kWh/m2
PH30: Reference building retrofitted to 30 kWh/m2
CDW: Construction and Demolition Waste