Part of the collaboration development work was to gain comparable carbon footprint data from the whole life cycle of a residential and an office building designed with different wooden frame options. In both building type cases the different wooden frame options were compared to a typical concrete building.
Concrete office building input data:
Building type | Office |
Building year | 2022 |
Gross area | 16600 brm2 |
Number of floors | 11 |
Form of heating | Geothermal and district heating |
Energy class | A |
Calculated purchasing energy consumption | Electricity: 768MWhDistrict heating: 493 MWhDistrict cooling: 102 MWh |
Consequence class | CC3, CC2 |
Reliability class | RC3, RC2 |
Fire protection level | R120 |
Concrete residential building input data:
Building type | Residential building |
Building year | 2022 |
Location | Espoo |
Gross floor area | 2500 m2 |
Number of floors | 6 (+ 1 basement floor) |
Plot area | 3789 rp-m2 |
Form of heating | Geothermal heating |
Energy class | A |
Calculated purchasing energy consumption | Electricity: 187MWh |
In the collaboration we designed three different low carbon frame options whose emissions were compared to the similar concrete buildings. The three options were:
a massive wood and low carbon concrete framed office building
a wooden conversion design of the concrete framed residential building
a wooden framed residential building that was optimised for wood from the beginning
Read more about the created wooden frame solutions here.