KIEAE Journal

  • 제14권3호
  • /
  • Pages.5-13
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 2288-968X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-9698(eISSN)
한국생태환경건축학회 (Korea Institute of Ecological Architecture and Environment)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Emergy-Simulation Based Building Retrofit

  • Hwang, Yi (Dept. of Architecture, University of Pennsylvania)
  • 투고 : 2014.03.11
  • 심사 : 2014.05.30
  • 발행 : 2014.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

This paper introduces emergy(spelled with "m") that is a new environmental indicator in architecture, aiming to clarify conflicting claims of building design components in the process of energy-retrofit. Much of design practitioners' attention on low energy use in operational phases, may simply shift the lowered environmental impact within the building boundary to large consumption of energy in another area. Specifically, building energy reduction strategies without a holistic view starting from natural formation, may lead to the depletion of non-renewable geobiological sources (e.g. minerals, fossil fuels, etc.), which leaves a building with an isolated energy-efficient object. Therefore, to overcome the narrow outlook, this research discusses the total ecological impact of a building which embraces all process energy as well as environmental cost represented by emergy. A case study has been conducted to explore emergy-driven design work. In comparison with operational energy-driven scenarios, the results elucidate how energy and emergy-oriented decision-making bring about different design results, and quantify building components' emergy contribution in the end. An average-size ($101.9m^2$) single family house located in South Korea was sampled as a benchmark case, and the analysis of energy and material use was conducted for establishment of the baseline. Adoption of the small building is effective for the goal of study since this research intends to measure environmental impact according to variation of passive design elements (windows size, building orientation, wall materials) with new metric (emergy) regardless of mechanical systems. Performance simulations of operational energy were developed and analyzed separately from the calculation of emergy magnitudes in building construction, and then the total emergy demand of each proposed design was evaluated. Emergy synthesis results verify that the least operational energy scenario requires greater investment in indirect energy in construction, which clearly reveals that efficiency gains are likely to be overwhelmed by increment of material flows. This result places importance on consideration of indirect energy use underscoring necessity of emergy evaluation towards the environment-friendly building in broader sense.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Baek C, Park SH, Suzuki M, Lee SH. Life cycle carbon dioxide assessment tool for buildings in the schematic design phase. Energy and Buildings 2013;61:275-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.01.025
  2. Braham WW. Architecture and Energy Performance and Style. Florence:Routledge;2013.
  3. Brahme R, O'Neill Z, Sisson W, Otto K. Using existing whole building energy tools for designing net-zero energy buildings - challenges and workarounds. Proceedings of the eleventh IBPSA Conference 2009:9-16.
  4. Buranakarn B. Evaluation of recycling and reuse of building materials using the emergy analysis method. University of Florida. PhD Thesis 1998.
  5. Hernandez P, Kenny P. From net energy to zero energy buildings: Defi ning life cycle zero energy buildings (LC-ZEB). Energy and Buildings 2000;42:815-821.
  6. Li D, Zhu J, Hui ECM, Leung BYP, Li Q. An emergy analysis-based methodology for eco-efficiency evaluation of building manufacturing. Ecological Indicators 2011;11:1419-1425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.004
  7. Malin N. The Problem with Net-Zero Buildings (and the Case for Net-Zero Neighborhoods). BuildingGreen Inc 2010. (Available online at:http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/2010/7/30/The-Problem-wit h-Net-Zero-Buildings-and-the-Case-for-Net-Zero-Neighborhoods/).
  8. Meillaud F, Gay JB, Brown MT. Evaluation of a building using the emergy method. Solar Energy 2005;79:204-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2004.11.003
  9. Odum HT, Environmental Accounting: EMERGY and Decision Making. NewYork:John Wiley; 1996.
  10. Pajchrowski G, Noskowiak A, Lewandowska A, Strykowski W. Materials composition or energy characteristic-What is more important in environmental life cycle of buildings?. Building and Environment 2014;72:15-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.10.012
  11. Price JW, Tilley DR. Emergy Evaluation of a Green Facade. Proceedings from the Sixth Biennial Emergy Conference 2010: 213-222.
  12. Pulselli RM, Simoncini E, Pulselli FM, Bastianoni S. Emergy analysis of building manufacturing, maintenance and use: Em-building indices to evaluate housing sustainability. Energy and Buildings 2007;39:620-628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.10.004
  13. Pulselli RM, Simoncini E, Marchettini N. Energy and emergy based cost-benefit evaluation of building envelops relative to geographical location and climate. Building and Environment 2009;44:920-928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.06.009
  14. Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla KK. Life cycle analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy and Buildings 2010;42:1592-1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.007
  15. Roodman DM, Lenssen N. A Building Revolution: How Ecology and Health Concerns Are Transforming Construction. Worldwatch Paper 1995;124.
  16. Sakulpipatsina P, Itard LCM, Van der Kooi HJ, Boelman EC, Luscuere PG. An exergy application for analysis of buildings and HVAC systems. Energy and Buildings 2010;42:90-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.07.015
  17. Schramski JR, Tilley DR, Carter TL, Rustagi N. Comparative Emergy Synthesis for Green Engineering. Proceedings from the Fifth Biennial Emergy Conference:207-221.
  18. Srinivasan RS, Braham WW, Campbell DE, Curcija CD. Building envelope optimization using emergy analysis in environmental building design. Proceedings of the 12th International Building Performance Simulation Association Conference 2011.
  19. Srinivasan RS, Braham WW, Campbell DE, Curcija CD. Re(De) fining Net Zero Energy: Renewable Emergy Balance in environmental building design. Building and Environment 2012;47: 300-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.010
  20. Thormark C. A low energy building in a life-cycle-its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential. Building and Environment 2002;37:429‒435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(01)00033-6
  21. U.S. EIA. 2012. Available online at: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual.
  22. Zhang Y, Singh S, Bakshi BR. Accounting for Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment, Part I: A Critical Review. Environmental Science and Technology 2010;44(7);2232-2242. https://doi.org/10.1021/es9021156