Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A multi-objective life cycle approach for optimal building design: A

case study in Finnish context
Sudip Kumar Pal a, *, Atsushi Takano b, Kari Alanne a, Matti Palonen a, Kai Siren a
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aalto University, P.O. Box 14100, FI-00076, Aalto, Finland
b
Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Kagoshima University, Japan

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

Article history: This study demonstrates the possibility to use energy-cost optimal building designs based on life cycle
Received 6 September 2016 approach. There is a lack of studies that cover the comprehensive assessment of both embodied energy
Received in revised form (EE) and operational energy (OE) in a single optimization problem. The primary goal of the current study
17 November 2016
is to compare the optimized results of using OEþEE together and OE only. The optimization is performed
Accepted 5 December 2016
Available online 7 December 2016
on a case study building (townhouse) in Finland with three structural alternatives (i.e., reinforced
concrete (RC); cross-laminated timber (CLT) and Steel). Different options for insulation thickness of
external wall, roof, floor and window types were considered as decision variables as the scope of the
Keywords:
Life cycle optimization
present study is on building envelope. The objectives of the optimization are to minimize life cycle
Embodied energy energy (LCE) and life cycle costs (LCC). The LCE difference between the most and least energy efficient
Operational energy solution on the pareto front is greater in case of the OE optimization, compared to OEþEE optimization.
Life cycle cost For all studied structures, the EE of the optimal solutions from OEþEE optimization ranges 16%e23% of
Building envelope LCE. Many of the non-dominated optimal solutions obtained from the OEþEE optimization shows a
higher U-value for the building envelope components compared to the optimal solutions from the OE
optimization. A relationship between both OE and EE with the overall thermal resistance of the building
envelope is discussed to obtain a deeper understanding of such differences in U-value for the optimal
solutions obtained from the OEþEE and OE optimization.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (on-site) renewable energy sources (European Union, 2010). The

implementation of such legislation aims to reduce the opera-
A 20% increase in energy efficiency by 2020 from 1990 levels is tional energy needs of buildings, although at the same time we
one of the major objectives of the EU’s sustainable growth see a rise in energy demand during the construction phase, which
strategy (European Commision, 2012). The building sector is is not governed through the present legislation. In this context,
identified as a 40% contributor to overall energy use across many researchers (Chen et al., 2001; Karimpour et al., 2014;
Europe (European Commision, 2011). In an effort to reduce the Verbeeck and Hens, 2010; Mohammed et al., 2013) have turned
energy consumption of buildings, most research has thus far their interest to the embodied energy (EE) assessment of build-
focused on the operational energy aspect because of its dominant ings. The EE is the energy sequestered in the building compo-
nature (Stephan et al., 2013; Yung et al., 2013). A clear indicator of nents during all processes of production, from on-site
the trend is the Energy Performance Buildings Directive (EPBD) construction to final demolition (Dixit et al., 2013). The embodied
recast, where all EU Member States agreed that, by the end of energy has been studied in the past through life cycle assessment
2020, all new buildings are to be nearly zero-energy buildings studies (Adalberth, 1997a,b; Mithraratne and Vale, 2007; Cole
(nZEB), i.e. buildings with a high energy performance, where a and Kernan, 1996; Cole and Wong, 1996; Thormak, 2002). A
significant proportion of energy needs will be covered by local past study by Cole and Wong shows that the embodied energy
contributes up to 40% of life cycle energy use for a residential
building (Cole and Wong, 1996). Another study by Sartori and
Hestnes (2007) reported that EE accounts up to 46% of life cycle
* Corresponding author. energy use (50-year life span) for low energy buildings and 38%
E-mail address: sudip.pal@aalto.fi (S.K. Pal). for conventional buildings. A more recent study by Rasmussen

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.018
0959-6526/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1022 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035

and Birgisdo
ttir (2016) on a Danish single family house, 2. Methodology

concluded that the share of EE is increasing with stricter opera-
tional energy requirements, as more insulation and improved 2.1. Case study building
building technical equipment is required. From the life cycle
perspective, the energy efficiency of the building sector should Residential buildings in Finland comprise 85% of the building
focus on a reduction of both EE and OE use, across the life cycle of stock and 64% of the building area (Statistics Finland, 2010). Thus,
the building (Jiao et al., 2012). improving the energy efficiency of residential houses can strongly
According to the EPBD recast, minimum energy performance influence the overall energy consumption of the building sector in
should be set with a view to achieving cost optimal levels. In Finland. Therefore, a three-story townhouse planned in Helsinki
order to follow the EPBD, there have been several studies per- was selected as the case study building. The townhouse concept has
formed in the past to determine optimal building designs in attracted considerable attention lately as a new urban housing ty-
terms of energy and cost. For example, Hasan et al. (2008). pology in Helsinki and is based on a conscious policy by the city
minimized the life cycle cost for a single family detached house in planning department (Ha €ma
€lainen, 2014). Fig. 1 shows the floor
Finland using a simulation based optimization. Similarly, Hamdy plan of the house. The house is located in Helsinki (60 N, 25 E), and
et al. (2013). minimized primary energy consumption and life it has a gross floor area of 259.6 m2. The internal height of each floor
cycle cost and, in (Hamdy et al., 2011a) minimized carbon dioxide is 2.7 m. The house contains a total glazing area of 47 m2. The en-
emission and investment costs of a single family detached house ergy performance level of the building envelope has been designed
in Finland using simulation based optimization. Another study by according to Finnish Building code D3 2012 (Ministry of
Hamdy et al. (2011b). minimized primary energy use and cooling Environment (2012)).
equipment size for an office building in Finland. Moreover, there
have been optimization studies on residential energy supply 2.2. The optimization problem
systems (Vera et al., 2014; Alanne et al., 2010). The study by
Ferrara et al. (2014). determines the cost optimal level of a French The goal of optimization is to search for the best design solution
single family house by using a simulation-based optimization by minimizing or maximizing one or more objective functions,
method. Ascione et al. (2016). has evaluated the cost optimality of which are dependent on one or more decision variables. Usually in
energy retrofitting for a reference hospital building in Italy using the context of building energy optimization, the decision variables
a multi-stage optimization approach. The study by Pikas et al. are also known as design variables. The design variables can be
(2014). has investigated energy efficient and cost optimal fenes- insulation thickness of the building envelope, window types, fea-
tration design solutions for an office building. However, these tures of the heating system and so forth. The objective functions are
studies have been limited in the operational phase of the build- usually related to the technical performance of the building or cost-
ings. An approach of the life cycle optimization would be required related parameters. The technical performance of a building can be
to understand the holistic picture of the energy efficiency of defined in many ways, such as life cycle energy, the E-value, CO2
buildings and to further develop sustainable construction in the emission etc. The cost can be the investment cost of the compo-
future. nents under investigation or life cycle cost. The technical perfor-
The review of the ‘Zero Energy Building’ by Marszal et al. (2011). mance and the cost parameters are conflicting objectives that
presented twelve methodologies for computing the ZEB balance. generate several optimal solutions with different features, but
The inclusion of EE was notably lacking (Marszal et al., 2011). principally are of equal worth as a result of multi-objective
However, a study by Hernandez and Kenny (2010) proposed the optimization.
definition of the life cycle zero energy building (LC-ZEB) through a
simplified conceptual methodology, taking into account the 2.2.1. Objective functions
embodied energy in the LC-ZEB balance. They nevertheless pointed In the present study, life cycle energy (LCE) and life cycle cost
out that the simplifications in the embodied energy calculations (LCC) are set as objective functions to be minimized. The formal
can be considered a limitation of their study. Further, studies by definition of the problem is as follows:
Wang et al. (2005). and Azari et al. (2016). seems to recognize the
need of life cycle optimization for green building design. But it MinfF1 ðxÞ ¼ LCE; F2 ðxÞ ¼ LCCg; ;x ¼ ½x1 ; x2 ; …; xn 
lacked the comparison of the optimized results with those of
traditional operational energy optimization. Although the study where x is the vector of the design variables (x1 ; x2 ; …; xn Þ, F1 is the
(Wang et al., 2005) is conducted for a building lifetime of 40 years, life cycle energy (LCE) of the house and F2 is the life cycle cost (LCC).
it did not consider any maintenance and replacement activities. In this optimization, the number of considered design variables is
Moreover, the building service systems are excluded from the four (i.e., x ¼ [x1 ; x2 ; x3 ; x4 ), as described in the next section.
system boundary of the study. According to the EPBD (recast) (European Union, 2010), primary
In this background, the aim of the present study is to demon- energy is a favorable metric to present the energy use of a building.
strate a multi-objective optimization in order to propose the life The OE represents the primary energy for functioning a building
cycle energy-cost optimal building design solutions. Particularly, (space heating, ventilation, domestic hot water, lighting and ap-
this is a case study to demonstrate a life cycle approach in opti- pliances) for 50 year service life. The OE is calculated by using a
mization, with focus on building envelope as it accounts majority of non-renewable primary energy factor of 0.7 for heat (assuming the
the life cycle environmental impact. The objectives of this optimi- heat source is from a district heating system) and 1.7 for electricity
zation problem is life cycle energy (LCE) and life cycle cost (LCC). (Ministry of Environment (2012)). Similarly, the EE is also calcu-
The novelty of this study is the inclusion of EE along with OE in a lated as the non-renewable primary energy use based on
single optimization scheme, and thereby offering the interaction of (Ecoinvent centre, 2015). To perform a life cycle optimization, the
the optimization algorithm with both OE and EE simulation models. embodied energy is taken into account along with operational
The primary objective is to compare the optimized results when energy, as shown in Fig. 2. The mathematical expression for LCE
using OEþEE and OE only and to discuss the benefits of the life cycle according to the extended system boundary is
optimization approach.
LCE ¼ OE þ EE (1)
 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035 1023

Ground floor plan First floor plan Second floor plan

Townhouse Entrance Living room 1 Bedroom 1 Living room 2 Bedroom 2

Fig. 1. Plan of case study building.

RPCi ¼ ICi ð1 þ rÞm (3)

where, r is the real interest rate, i is the index for the design variable
to be replaced and m is the replacement interval. All the costs taken
from a source are updated based on the inflation rate (Statistics
Finland, 2014). A real interest rate r of 3% is used in the cost
calculation, according to the Commission’s cost optimal regulation
(European Union, 2012).
For calculating the operational energy, the energy prices and its
escalation rates were obtained from the database (on energy pri-
ces) of Statistics Finland (Statistics Finland, 2015). The heating en-
ergy source is assumed to be district heating (DH). The considered
average electricity and DH prices are 12.08 c/kWh and 8.2 c/kWh
Fig. 2. Used optimization concept including both EE and OE. respectively (Statistics Finland, 2015). It is a common practice in
building energy research to consider flat average rate for energy
prices with a price development (escalation) for a defined period
The second objective, LCC is the sum of the present value of the (Eicker et al., 2015; Orioli and Gangi, 2014). The escalation rates for
investment costs (IC), maintenance costs (MC), replacement costs electricity and DH used in the calculation are 2.74% and 1.78%
(RPC) and operational costs (OC) over the life time of the building. It respectively. This is based on the energy price development for the
is expressed as last 10 years. All energy prices include tax and transportations
costs.

2.2.2. Decision (design) variables

LCC ¼ IC þ MC þ RPC þ OC (2)
Building envelope has a great impact on the life cycle energy
In this study, the analysis period or building life cycle is performance of buildings, especially in residential buildings (Ingrao
considered to be 50 years, according to (Islam et al., 2015). The et al., 2016; Motuziene_ et al., 2016; Sierra-Pe

rez et al., 2016). There
investment cost is the summation of the cost of the building’s exist studies which considers thermal properties (or, insulation
structural material, wall, roof and floor insulation, cost of windows thickness) of building envelope (Daouas, 2011; Gossard et al., 2013;
and building service systems. The replacement costs are considered Lollini et al., 2006; Ucar and Balo, 2009) as design variables in their
for roof insulation, windows and building service systems that have optimization. The glazing systems also capture the interest of some
a shorter life time than 50 years. No maintenance costs are researchers in context of building optimization (Ottele et al.,
considered for replaced components. The maintenance costs were Raiteri; Wright and Mourshed, 2009). Additionally, there were
based on the maintenance measures in Table 4. The replacement studies which perform life cycle energy-environmental assessment
costs are calculated using of building envelope (Azari, 2014; Stazi et al., 2012). The envelope is
1024 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035

a dominant building element for both EE and OE (Takano et al., Table 2

2014; Takano et al., 2015a). As mentioned before, this study fo- Investment cost data of the design variables (Haahtela and Kiiras, 2013; Hamdy et al.,
2011a).
cuses on residential buildings, which is basically small scale
compared to, for instance, office or commercial buildings. In addi- Description Price
tion, in this study, a main attention has been put on the perfor- RC structural concept
mance of building as such rather than building service systems. Investment in external wall 214 V/m2 (structure) þ 65 V/m3 (insulation)
Therefore, the present study considers design variables related to Investment in roof 119 V/m2 (structure) þ 37 V/m3 (insulation)
Investment in floor 78 V/m2 (structure) þ 114 V/m3 (insulation)
building envelope to demonstrate the methodology of this case
CLT structural concept
study. Investment in external wall 140 V/m2 (structure) þ 65 V/m3 (insulation)
In this study, the design variables for the building envelope are Investment in roof 181 V/m2 (structure) þ 37 V/m3 (insulation)
selected so as to fulfill the requirements of current National Investment in floor 71 V/m2 (structure) þ 114 V/m3 (insulation)
Steel structural concept
building code D3 (Ministry of Environment (2012)) at the minimum
Investment in external wall 118 V/m2 (structure) þ 65 V/m3 (insulation)
and to realize a passive house at the maximum (RIL 249, 2009). The Investment in roof 171 V/m2 (structure) þ 37 V/m3 (insulation)
current study considers four design variables: insulation thick- Investment in floor 67 V/m2 (structure) þ 114 V/m3 (insulation)
nesses of the external wall, roof and floor, and the window type Window
with different U-values. Table 1 presents the upper bound, the U-value ¼ 1.0, 0.8, 0.6 W/m2K 252, 290, 350 V/m2
lower bound and the number of design options for each variable.
The investment cost information related to each of the design
variables are shown in Table 2. The number of all possible designs is
4992 (16  8  13  3). It is computationally expensive to explore
all designs. Hence, a multi-objective non-dominated sorting ge-
netic algorithm (NSGA-II) is used to perform the exploration. This
algorithm has been successfully used in previous studies (Hamdy
et al., 2011a; Hamdy et al., 2013), which are closely related to the
topic of present study. The building service systems like heating
(DH supply), ventilation (60% heat recovery) and electricity (no
onsite renewable) system are set to be a constant according to the
scope of this study.
The optimization is performed for three structural material
packages: reinforced concrete panel (RC), cross laminated timber
(CLT) and Steel for comparison, based on a past study (Takano et al.,
2015a) (shown in Appendix A). At the time the study was carried
out, it was the most recent material and life cycle energy study
according to the regulations for construction practices in Finland.

2.3. Calculation at each stage of building life cycle

This study is based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) method

(ISO 14040:2006; ISO 14044: 2006) and the system boundary for
the assessment is summarized in Fig. 3. The life cycle stages studied
are identified according to the modularity principle of a building
life cycle (EN 15978: 2011). The embodied energy demand is
calculated using the unit impact (in kWh/kgof product) value ob-
tained from the Ecoinvent database (Ecoinvent centre, 2015). The
end of life stages (module C) are excluded from the study due to a
lack of information as well as their minor dominance (Takano et al.,
2015a,b). Since module C is not assessed, module D (benefits and
load beyond the system boundary) is also not included in this study.
Nevertheless, since the influence of the module D in the life cycle
energy balance of a building is significant (Adalberth, 1997b), it
should be taken into account in the future study. The operational
Fig. 3. System boundary of this study.
energy demand is calculated using the IDA ICE software (Equa
Simulation AB, 2013). Detailed information about the calculation

Table 1
Specification of the design variables.

Design variable Type of variable Range/Values No of design options

1. Insulation thickness of external wall Continuous 0.185e0.48 m 0.02 m uniform step (16 options)
2. Insulation thickness of roof Continuous 0.41e0.55 m 0.02 m uniform step (8 options)
3. Insulation thickness of the floor Continuous 0.2e0.44 m 0.02 m uniform step (13 options)
4. Window type Discrete Type 1: U-value ¼ 1.0 W/m2K, 3 options
Type 2: U-value ¼ 0.8 W/m2K,
Type 3: U-value ¼ 0.6 W/m2K
 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035 1025

method in each life cycle stage is provided in the following sub- in complex buildings.
sections. The energy performance level of the building services has been
designed according to Finnish Building code D3 2012 (Ministry of
2.3.1. Material production stage (module A1-3) Environment (2012)). The key details are summarized in Table 5.
The energy consumption during the manufacturing process of The house is ventilated by a centralized constant air volume (CAV)
components of the case study building is assessed by referring to mechanical supply and exhaust ventilation system with heat re-
the method used by Takano et al. (2014). The calculation was car- covery control. The temperature efficiency of the heat recovery
ried out by multiplying the unit values, which are derived from one system is 60%. For AHU, the supply air set-point temperature is
square metre of the building elements (kWh/m2), by the area of 18  C. The demand profile for domestic hot water (DHW) is based
each building element in m2 as shown in Table 3. on measurements from 15 district-heated houses in Helsinki
(Koivuniemi, 2005). The hourly profile of lighting, electrical appli-
2.3.2. Construction stage (module A4-5) ances, occupants, etc., is based on statistical information gathered
The construction (installation) cost of building components was from questionnaires and from hourly measured consumption of
counted based on data from references (Palolahti et al., 2013; 1630 Finnish houses over a one-year period (Safdarian et al., 2014).
Bra€nnare, 2012; Laihosola, 2013; Haahtela and Kiiras, 2013). The building envelope has an airtightness (n50) of 2 1/h, where n50
Since, in many cases, the energy consumption and cost are strongly is the number of air changes per hour equivalent to an air-leakage
correlated with a building system (Langston and Langston, 2009; rate, with a 50 Pa pressure difference between the indoors and
Langston and Langston, 2008; Noerwasito, 2011), construction outdoors (Ministry of Environment (2012)). The simulation uses the
energy is estimated from the production energy based on a rela- Finnish test-reference-year weather file (TRY2012) for Helsinki
tionship between the material and construction costs. (Kalamees et al., 2012). The set-point temperature for heating is
21  C.
2.3.3. Use stage: maintenance (module B2þ4)
The maintenance of the building was considered according to
the expected service life and maintenance intervals of the building 2.4. Optimization using MOBO
components (Finnish Ministry of the Environment, 2008) as listed
in Table 4. The energy consumption and cost for manufacturing the The embodied energy modules were computed using an Excel-
products used in maintenance, as well as maintenance works, were based model (with VB™ programming), whilst the operational
assessed. It was assumed that all maintenance was carried out energy (module B6) is computed using IDA ICE software. In the
using the same materials and same energy inputs as originally used. present approach, these two computational models were combined
The expected service life of the structural frame material (except to solve a multi-objective optimization problem. MOBO (Multi-
the surface components) is chosen as 50 years and there is no need Objective Building Optimization) (Palonen et al., 2013) is used to
to assume replacement and maintenance. The replacement of the combine these two models to perform the optimization. The study
roofing materials, window and building service systems was by Nyugen et al. (2014). reviewed MOBO as one of the 18 most used
counted once during the lifetime of the building. The repainting of optimization programs found in the building performance opti-
the surface components was taken into account according to the mization literature. Moreover, Palonen et al. (2013). reviewed
maintenance interval. No repair or refurbishment work was several other optimization tools to highlight the useful features of
assumed to be carried out during the study period of 50 years. The MOBO. The working scheme of the proposed optimization
waste management process for the components replaced was not approach is shown in Fig. 4. MOBO possess the graphic user
included, because of its minor influence on the end results (Takano interface (GUI) to write the design variables and its ranges, objec-
et al., 2015a). tive functions, cost equations and different energy components
delimiters (to automatically copy the data from IDA ICE and excel
2.3.4. Use stage: building operation (module B6) model). Additionally, the user can select any optimization algo-
To calculate the operational energy, the case study building was rithm from a list of seven different optimization algorithms. For the
simulated using the IDA-ICE building simulation software (IDA ICE). present optimization, NSGA II algorithm has been selected. A
The IDA ICE software was originally developed by the Division of comparison of NSGA-II with some selected algorithms is provided
Building Services Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Table 6 in order to justify its selection. In practice, MOBO imports
and the Swedish Institute of Applied Mathematics, ITM (Sahlin, both IDAICE and excel model and the method proceeds as one
1996). IDA-ICE has been validated by EN 13791 (EN ISO 13791, round of IDA ICE simulation followed by one round of the Excel
2004). The study by Travesi et al. conducted on the empirical simulation. The work is done using a computer: Intel(R) Core(TM)
validation of models for five simulation tools, including IDA-ICE, i5-3470 CPU @ 3.20 GHz (4 CPUs), ~3.2 GHz with Windows 7. One
concluded that the agreement between the measured and simu- IDA ICE simulation run takes 5 min on average.
lated data was good (Travesi et al., 2001). The software allows the In this study, LCE and LCC are minimized. An automatic
modeling of multi-zone buildings, HVAC systems, internal loads, simulation-based optimization method is performed using the
and outdoor climate, among others, and provides a dynamic NSGA-II algorithm. The algorithm avoids repetition, keeps all the
simulation of heat and air flow with a variable time-step. It is a iterations in an archive and uses them in non-dominated sorting
suitable tool for the simulation of operational energy consumption process. MOBO uses NSGA-II algorithm with an initial population of
20 individuals for 40 generations (i.e., 20  80 ¼ 800 simulation
runs). The design variables (16  8  13  3 ¼ 4992) are explored
Table 3
effectively through 800 simulation runs of both IDA ICE and the
Area of different elements of building envelope.
Excel model in the OEþEE optimization case and only the IDA ICE
Building element Area, m2 model in the OE optimization case. Additionally, the same search
External wall 252 space (i.e., 4992) was explored through 1600 simulation runs and it
Roof 91 was found that the behavior of optimal solutions is very similar to
Floor 91 the ones obtained from 800 simulation runs. Thus, 800 simulations
Window 47
for each optimization were used to save the computational time.
1026 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035

Table 4
Expected service life, maintenance interval and maintenance measure (Finnish Ministry of the Environment, 2008).

Expected service life (year) Maintenance interval (year) Maintenance

Structural frame
All 50 e e
Sheathing
Gypsum board 50 20 (wall) or 30 (ceiling) Repaint
Cladding/Flooring
Wood plank 50 10 Repaint
Roofing
PVC sheet 25 e e
Inner components
All 50 e e
Window
Glazing 25 e e
Wood frame 25 10 Repaint
HVAC equipment 25 e e

Table 5 3. Results and discussion

Information on Building service systems.

Systems Description/Value 3.1. Optimal design solutions

Ventilation CAV mechanical supply and exhaust ventilation
with heat recovery control Fig. 5 shows the relationship between LCE versus LCC of the
Heating source District heating system non-dominated optimal solutions for the three structural alterna-
DHW, lighting, appliances, Hourly demand profile based on measured data tives used in this study.
occupants profile from previous Finnish studies
The right most curves show the relationship between LCE versus
Heating set point 21  C
Climate Helsinki LCC or, the pareto front resulting from OEþEE optimization. Simi-
larly, the curves on the left side are the pareto front resulting from
the OE optimization. The solutions of the pareto front are called
non-dominated solutions. For all structures, the LCE difference
between the most (i.e., the left-most solution of the curves) and
least energy efficient solution (i.e., the right-most solution of the
curves) on the pareto front resulted greater value from OE opti-
mization, compared to OEþEE optimization. In other words, the
energy saving potential of the implemented design variables is over
estimated in the case of the conventional OE optimization. For
example, in the case of the RC structural concept, the LCE value of
the pareto front ranges from 142.9 to 135.6 kWh/m2y from OEþEE
optimization, whereas in the OE optimization it is 118.5 to
106.3 kWh/m2y. This is due to the inclusion of embodied energy in
the OEþEE optimization. A thicker insulation is able to reduce the
operational energy demand, but at the same time it increases the
embodied energy demand due to the use of more material.
Therefore, the solutions of the pareto front from OEþEE optimiza-
tion are characterized by slightly thinner insulation, as seen in
Figs. 6e8, compared to the pareto front solutions from the OE
optimization. These results clearly indicate that a thicker insulation
is not always the best solution from the life cycle energy efficiency
point of view.
Fig. 4. The combined simulation-optimization environment. The LCE difference between the resulting pareto front from the
OEþEE and OE optimization is higher on the more energy efficient

Table 6
Comparison of NSGA-II algorithm with other optimization algorithms (Attia et al., 2013).

Algorithm Features

Single objective Multi- Constraint Handling discrete Handling continuous Parallel

problem objective handling variables variables computing
problem

NSGA-II ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Brute-Force ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Random search ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Hooke-Jeeves ✔ ✔ ✔
OMNI optimizer ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035 1027

1550

Life cycle cost, €/m2

1500
RC (OE) RC (OE+EE)

1450
CLT (OE) CLT (OE+EE)
1400
Steel (OE) Steel (OE+EE)

1350
100 110 120 130 140 150
Life cycle energy (LCE), kWh/m2y

Fig. 5. LCE versus LCC of the non-dominated optimal combinations of the design variables.

side (i.e., the left-most solutions of the curves) compared with the increasing popularity of the concept of life cycle approach, finding
less energy efficient side (i.e., the right-most solutions of the an optimal LCE level would be important. This information is useful
curves). The left-most points of the pareto curves contain solutions for designers making decisions with a view to the whole life cycle
with thicker insulation. The greater influence of EE among the left- energy use.
most points makes the curve slightly steeper. This accounts for the
higher LCE difference between the pareto front from the OEþEE 3.2. Non-dominated optimal combinations of design variables
and OE optimizations for more energy efficient solutions. This
result is in good agreement with the study of Sartori and Hestnes In total, there were 72 non-dominated optimal solutions resul-
(2007), that showed that for low energy buildings, the share of ted from each optimization run for the RC structural concept.
embodied energy is higher than in conventional buildings. Addi- Figs. 6e9 shows the design variable values of the non-dominated
tionally, for the most and least energy efficient solution on pareto solutions for the RC structural concept. There is a difference
front, the LCE breakdown and LCC values is provided in Table 7. For noticeable in the U-value of non-dominated solutions obtained
OE optimization, the EE is calculated separately by using the design from the OEþEE and OE optimization. Generally, the U-value of the
variable and structure information from the optimal solutions. In non-dominated solutions from the OEþEE optimization is higher
OEþEE optimization, the EE value is directly available from the than the ones from the OE alone optimization. These results again
optimal solution results. There is not much difference found in the indicate that the lower U-value is not always the optimal solution
LCE values from OEþEE and OE optimization of different structures. from life cycle perspective.
Importantly, the EE of the non-dominated solutions from OE opti- For the external wall, 100% of the non-dominated solution
mization are indicated by higher values than for OEþEE optimiza- shows different U-value from the OEþEE and OE optimizations.
tion. Further, Table 7 indicates that for RC (OEþEE) case, the EE Among the design variables, the external wall is the highest
share ranges between 23% and 16% of the LCE, from the most to contributor of embodied energy, as shown in Table 8. The reason is
least energy efficient solution. Similarly for CLT (OEþEE) and Steel the use of more material due to the larger area of external wall. The
(OEþEE) structural case, the EE share holds 24%e19% and 19%e16% higher embodied energy of the external wall resulted in differences
of the LCE respectively. for all non-dominated solution from the OEþEE and OE optimiza-
Furthermore, the optimization is performed for three structural tion. For the roof, nearly 47% of the non-dominated solutions show
concepts. The pareto fronts in Fig. 5 and LCC values in Table 7 shows differences in the U-value obtained from the OEþEE and OE opti-
that steel structural concept provides the most cost effective non- mizations. But among them, the differences in U-values are negli-
dominated optimal solutions, with a little compromise on the en- gible. This can be explained by the lowest embodied energy of the
ergy efficiency side compared with the other structures. RC and CLT roof as shown in Table 8. For the floor, the difference in U-values
are nearly at the same energy performance level, but the CLT non- among the non-dominated solutions obtained from the OEþEE and
dominated optimal solutions are more cost-effective than RC. OE optimization accounts for around 87%. In terms of the embodied
Although, at present the RC is the most common structural concept energy value, it is the second highest after external wall, as indi-
for buildings in Finland, CLT seems to be a good alternative with cated in Table 8. Another reason is the expensive floor insulation
almost the same energy performance level but with less life cycle material, which also aids towards the selection of a higher U-value
cost. (or, thinner floor insulation) for the non-dominated solutions. The
Finally, it was found that a conventional optimization (i.e., OE differences between the U-value are more visible on the left side
optimization) doesn’t provide the right magnitude of optimal LCE i.e., among more energy efficient solutions. This is because of the
level from the perspective of life cycle energy use. As the present higher impact of EE among the more energy efficient solutions, due
definition of energy efficient building (such as nZEB) is only limited to the use of more material in form of thicker insulation. For win-
to the operational phase of the building, so the results for OE dows, 14% of the non-dominated solutions resulted in different U-
optimization hold relevance. But on the other hand, the definition values from the OEþEE and OE optimization. The savings in
of nZEB is constantly evolving and thus considering a zero energy embodied energy due to the selection of higher U-value windows is
balance in the whole life cycle would be relevant in future, as comparatively less. The embodied energy corresponding to a U-
demonstrated in (Hernandez and Kenny, 2010). In future, with value of 0.6 W/m2K is shown in Table 8. The embodied energy has a
1028 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035

0.14

U-value wall, W/m2 K 0.12

0.1 RC (OE+EE)

RC (OE)
0.08

0.06
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. 6. External wall U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (RC structural concept).

0.07
U-value roof, W/m2K

0.06

RC (OE+EE)
0.05 RC (OE)

0.04
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. 7. Roof U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (RC structural concept).

0.18
U-value floor, W/m 2K

0.16
0.14
0.12
RC (OE+EE)
0.1
RC (OE)
0.08
0.06
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. 8. Floor U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (RC structural concept).

negligible impact on determining an optimal U-value for windows. and steel structural concepts were evaluated. The results are shown
For windows, the main driving factor is the operational (i.e., heat- in Appendix B (Fig. B.1 to B.8). Both structural alternatives showed
ing) energy savings. similar trend as the RC case. But in the case of CLT, the differences in
Furthermore, the non-dominated optimal solutions for the CLT magnitude of the floor U-value obtained from the OEþEE and OE
 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035 1029

Table 7
LCE and LCC of most and least energy efficient solution on pareto front.

Description of optimization cases Values of design variables Output values

Wall U-value, W/ Roof U-value, W/ Floor U-value, W/ Window type, W/ OE, kWh/ EE, kWh/ LCE, kWh/ LCC,
m2K m2K m2K m2K m2y m2y m2y V/m2

RC (OEþEE) most energy efficient 0.093 0.061 0.135 0.6 106.3 29.2 135.5 1496
solution
RC (OEþEE) least energy efficient 0.138 0.063 0.177 0.8 118.6 25.0 143.0 1459
solution
RC (OE) most energy efficient solution 0.087 0.061 0.126 0.6 105.3 31.1 136.4 1501
RC (OE) least energy efficient solution 0.129 0.063 0.177 0.8 118.0 25.8 143.8 1458
CLT (OEþEE) most energy efficient 0.085 0.064 0.119 0.6 103.2 32.0 135.2 1455
solution
CLT (OEþEE) least energy efficient 0.126 0.072 0.126 0.8 115.0 27.4 142.4 1409
solution
CLT (OE) most energy efficient solution 0.079 0.062 0.096 0.6 102.2 34.1 136.3 1458
CLT (OE) least energy efficient solution 0.122 0.072 0.126 0.8 114.5 28.5 143.0 1410
Steel (OEþEE) most energy efficient 0.079 0.087 0.139 0.6 110.8 26.0 136.8 1400
solution
Steel (OEþEE) least energy efficient 0.107 0.093 0.177 0.8 121.7 23.0 144.7 1363
solution
Steel (OE) most energy efficient 0.078 0.083 0.115 0.6 110.0 27.7 137.7 1403
solution
Steel (OE) least energy efficient 0.101 0.093 0.177 0.8 121.2 24.0 145.2 1363
solution

optimization is less than the ones obtained in the RC case. This is genome, depending on the genome of their parents. This process
due to the lower EE of the CLT structural floor compared with the RC continuous until it reaches the optimal state where the genetic
floor. For windows, the CLT case shows similar behavior to the RC operators cannot produce offspring that outperform their parents.
case. Additionally, in the case of the steel structural concept, only Therefore, the individuals of the first generation have an impact in
62% of the non-dominated solutions of floor show different U- determining the non-dominated optimal solutions, which is re-
values obtained from the OEþEE and OE optimization. This is due to flected in the outcomes of the OEþEE and OE optimization runs, as
the least EE value for the steel structural floor compared with other found in this study.
floor concepts, as seen in Table 8. Additionally, increasing the number of generations will give
Overall the results show a random pattern of non-dominated better ranked offspring due to the higher number of crossovers. To
solutions obtained for different components of building envelope. test the effect of an increased number of generations, the proposed
This can be explained by the principle of the genetic algorithm problem is solved by increasing the number of generations to 80.
(NSGA-II) used in this study. According to the principle of genetic The optimization is also executed for 1600 simulation runs (i.e.,
algorithm, the genome of the initial population is usually randomly population size ¼ 20, number of generations ¼ 80). In general, the
chosen in the limits defined for the design variables. This initial number of non-dominated solutions increases due to a higher
population forms the first generation. Hence, for different optimi- number of simulation runs. Yet the behavior of the non-dominated
zation runs (i.e., OEþEE and OE cases), it is most likely that the solutions for the design variables remains somewhat similar to the
individuals of the initial population are not identical. The next results obtained for the lower number of simulation runs. There-
generation is produced by forming pairs of the individuals of the fore, the optimization with a population size of 20 and a generation
first generation to breed a new “child” generation. In different of 40 (i.e., 800 simulation runs) is sufficient to achieve global op-
optimization runs, the “child” generation appears with a different timum for the proposed problem.

1
U-value window, W/m2K

0.8

0.6

0.4 RC (OE+EE)
RC (OE)
0.2

0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. 9. Window U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (RC structural concept).
1030 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035

Table 8
EE values of design variables for most energy efficient solution on the pareto front from OEþEE optimization.

Structure type EE (kWh/y) for external wall EE (kWh/y) for roof EE (kWh/y) for floor EE (kWh/y) for window

RC 2487 920 1486 1271

CLT 2943 1247 1246 1271
Steel 1615 1146 1137 1271

3.3. Analyzing the OE and EE versus the overall thermal resistance that the rate of change of the operational and embodied energy is
of the building envelope different. Among more energy efficient solutions, a rise in envelope
resistance reflects lesser savings for OE, as shown in Fig. 10. How-
This analysis discusses; why the non-dominated solutions of ever, EE maintains a linear behavior (Fig. 11) and thereby a drop in
design variables achieve different U-value from OEþEE and OE overall thermal transmittance allows for a constant energy savings
optimization? It considers the energy values of the non-dominated potential throughout the solution space. As the minimization po-
solutions (for RC structure) against the overall thermal resistance tential of OE is lower among more energy efficient solutions, so the
(P1UA) value of the building envelope. The energy demands of the function for LCE tries to minimize the other component EE by
selecting a higher U-value. This is the reason why the non-
non-dominated solutions from OE optimization were plotted
dominated of the OEþEE and OE are showing higher differences
versus P1UA value as shown in Fig. 10. The extreme right point on in U-value among more energy efficient solutions.
the curve is the most energy efficient solution, corresponding to
non-dominated solution number 1. Similarly the point situated at
the extreme left of the curve is the least energy efficient solution, 4. Conclusions
corresponding to non-dominated solution number 72. The slope of
the curve is calculated, which indicates that towards the more This study demonstrated the possibilities to use multi-objective
energy efficient solutions, the slope is 1.3 W2/m2K, whereas to- life cycle optimization versus multi-objective energy optimization.
wards less energy efficient solution side the slope is 4.5 W2/m2K. This approach will lead to further popularization of the energy
This indicates that at the less energy efficient side, increasing the efficient buildings. Especially in the age of zero energy building, this
insulation thickness leads to a steep drop in operational energy sort of multiple design solution will become more important to-
demand. Thereafter, towards the more energy efficiency side, wards sustainable society. A brief summary of the key findings are:
increasing the insulation thickness has relatively less impact on the
reduction of operational energy demand.  The optimal solutions from the OE and OEþEE approaches are
On the other hand, the relationship between EE versus P1UA is quite close to each other. This is true for this case study but
cannot be generalized.
shown in Fig. 11. This is obtained from the results of the OEþEE  The non-dominated optimal solutions, especially for the
optimization for the RC structure. The behavior is more or less external wall and floor, show higher U-values or less insulation
linear and the calculated slope of the curve is 0.9 W2/m2K. This obtained from the OEþEE optimization compared to OE
means that EE rises linearly with the increase in insulation thick- optimization.
ness. The discontinuity (or notch) around a thermal resistance  The optimal results of all structural concepts conclude that the
value of 0.012 K/W is mainly due to a change in window type, as it EE share ranges from 23% to 16% of the LCE, from most energy
has a strong influence on the P1UA value, due to its high U-value efficient to least energy efficient solution.
compared with other components of the building envelope.  Embodied energy is higher among more energy efficient solu-
Generally, the changing slope of the OE curve (in Fig. 10) resulted in tions due to increased use of materials.
a different U-value for the non-dominated optimal solutions of the  The LCE difference between the most and least energy efficient
design variables from the OEþEE and OE optimization. It was found solution on the pareto front is greater in case of the OE opti-
mization, compared to the OEþEE optimization.

120
118
116
114
OE, kWh/m2y

112
110
108
106
104
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02

Fig. 10. Operational energy versus overall thermal resistance of envelope for RC structure.
 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035 1031

30

29

EE, kWh/m2y
28

27

26

25

24
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02

Fig. 11. Embodied energy versus overall thermal resistance of envelope for RC structure.

 The difference between the LCE values (kWh/m2y) of the pareto end-of life, more building materials and building services.
front from the OEþEE and OE optimization are higher towards Furthermore, the validation of the results presented is limited to a
the more energy efficient solutions compared to the less energy single case study. Therefore, further study will also consider addi-
efficient solutions. tional sustainable indicators, building types and geometrical fea-
 In case of the OEþEE optimization, the LCE of the pareto fronts tures in order to develop more comprehensive approach.
(for different structures) are nearly at same level. For the OE
optimization, however, the steel constructions show higher life
cycle energy values.
 The order in life-cycle cost, from highest to lowest is: concrete, Acknowledgement
timber and steel.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Energy efficiency
The goal of an exercise such as this study is to develop the research program of Aalto University for funding this research
manner of multi-criteria decision-making for decision-makers in work.
the construction industry. Although the present study is just the
first step, it indicates an importance of the life cycle perspective in
the optimization exercise as well as new approach for realizing the
Appendix A
life cycle zero energy building. To develop this approach, it would
be necessary to include other building life cycle phases, such as

Table A.1
Compositional details of the structural material packages.

Foundation þ Ground floor Exterior wall Intermediate floor Roof

Material t (mm) kg/ Material t (mm) kg/ Material t (mm) kg/ Material t (mm) kg/
m2 m2 m2 m2

RC Wood plank (Painted) 28 13 Wood plank (Painted) 28 13 Wood plank (Painted) 28 13 PVC sheet 12 2
Reinforced concrete slab 80 194 Wood batten 30 2 Cement screed 5 10 OSB 18 10
Reinforced concrete footing 440 1299 Reinforced concrete 220 533 Hollow concrete slab 265 289 Wood batten 38 4
Vapour barrier fleece 0.5 0,2 Mineral wool 240 Blow-in wool 430 30
EPS 150 5 Timber truss - 9
Gravel 100 90 Vapour barrier sheet 0.1 0,2
Hollow concrete slab 175 205
CLT Wood plank (Painted) 28 13 Wood plank (Painted) 28 13 Wood plank (Painted) 28 13 PVC sheet 1.2 2
Reinforced concrete slab 80 194 Wood batten 30 2 Particleboard 22 15 OSB 18 10
Reinforced concrete footing 440 931 Mineral wool 360 25 Timber joist 225 23 LVL beam 300 18
Vapour barrier fleece 0.5 0,2 CLT 100 47 Rock wool 150 3 Blow-in wool 400 20
EPS 150 5 Gypsum board (Painted) 13 13 CLT 120 56
Gravel 100 90
Steel Wood plank (Painted) 28 13 Wood plank (Painted) 28 13 Wood plank (Painted) 28 13 PVC sheet 1.2 2
Reinforced concrete slab 80 194 Wood batten 30 2 Particleboard 22 15 OSB 18 10
Reinforced concrete footing 440 726 Gypsum board 9 9 Steel joist 200 7 Blow-in wool 500 30
Vapour barrier fleece 0.5 0,2 Steel stud 250 8 Rock wool 150 5 Steel truss - 10
EPS 150 5 Mineral wool 250 8 Gypsum board (Painted) 13 13 Vapour barrier sheet 0.1 0,2
Gravel 100 90 Gypsum board (Painted) 13 13 Steel backing 50 5
Gypsum board (Painted) 30 30
1032 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035

Appendix B

0.14
U-value wall, W/m2K

0.12

0.1 CLT (OE+EE)

CLT (OE)
0.08

0.06
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. B.1. External wall U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (CLT structural concept).

0.08
U-value roof, W/m2K

0.07

0.06
CLT (OE+EE)

0.05 CLT (OE)

0.04
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. B.2. Roof U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (CLT structural concept).

0.14
U-value floor, W/m2K

0.12

0.1
CLT (OE+EE)

0.08 CLT (OE)

0.06
1 4 7 101316192225283134374043464952555861646770737679
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. B.3. Floor U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (CLT structural concept).
 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035 1033

U-value window, W/m2K

0.8

0.6

0.4 CLT (OE+EE)

CLT (OE)
0.2

0
1 4 7 101316192225283134374043464952555861646770737679
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. B.4. Window U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (CLT structural concept).

0.12
U-value wall, W/m2K

0.1
Steel (OE+EE)

Steel (OE)
0.08

0.06
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. B.5. External wall U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions(Steel structural concept).

0.1
U-value roof, W/m2K

0.09
0.08
0.07
Steel (OE+EE)
0.06
Steel (OE)
0.05
0.04
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. B.6. Roof U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (Steel structural concept).
1034 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035

0.18
U-value floor, W/m2K 0.16
0.14
0.12
Steel (OE+EE)
0.1
Steel (OE)
0.08
0.06
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70
Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. B.7. Floor U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (Steel structural concept).

1
U-value window, W/m2K

0.8

0.6

0.4 CLT (OE+EE)

CLT (OE)
0.2

0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70

Non-dominated op mal solu ons

Fig. B.8. Window U-value of the non-dominated optimal solutions (Steel structural concept).

References buildings. In: Proceedings of Housing for Millions: the Challenge Ahead, Hong
Kong.
Daouas, N., 2011. A study on optimum insulation thickness in walls and energy
Adalberth, K., 1997. Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: a method. Build.
savings in Tunisian buildings based on analytical calculation of cooling and
Environ. 32, 317e320.
heating transmission loads. Appl. Energy 88 (1), 156e164.
Adalberth, K., 1997. Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings: ex-
Dixit, M., Culp, C., Fernandez-Solis, J., 2013. System boundary for embodied energy
amples. Build. Environ. 32, 321e329.
€derholma, N., Siren, K., Beausoleil-Morrisonb, I., 2010. “Techno-eco- in buildings: a conceptual model for definition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 21,
Alanne, K., So
153e164.
nomic assessment and optimization of Stirling engine micro-cogeneration
Ecoinvent centre, 9 November 2015. The Ecoinvent Database V3.01 [Online].
systems in residential buildings. Energy Convers. Manag. 51 (12), 2635e2646.
Available. http://ecoinvent.org/database/.
Ascione, F., Bianco, N., Stasio, C.D., Mauro, G.M., Vanoli, G.P., 2016. Multi-stage and
Eicker, U., Demir, E., Gurlich, D., 2015. Strategies for cost efficient refurbishment and
multi-objective optimization for energy retrofitting a developed hospital
solar energy integration in European Case study buildings. Energy Build. 102,
reference building: a new approach to access cost optimality. Appl. Energy 174,
237e249.
37e68.
EN 15978 2011, “Sustainability of Construction Works - Assesment of Environ-
Attia, S., Hamdy, M., O’Brien, W., Carlucci, S., 2013. Assessing gaps and needs for
mental Performance of Buildings - Calculation Method,” European commitee
integrating building performance optimization tools in net zero energy build-
for Standardization.
ings design. Energy Build. 60, 110e124.
EN ISO 13791, 2004. Thermal performance of Buildings. Calculation of Internal of a
Azari, R., 2014. Integrated energy and environmental life cycle assessment of office
Room in Summer without Mecahanical Cooling. General Criteria and Validation
building envelopes. Energy Build. 82, 156e162.
Procedures. BSI.
Azari, R., Garshasbi, S., Amini, P., Rashed-Ali, H., Mohammadi, Y., 2016. “Multi-
Equa Simulation AB, “IDA Indoor Climate and Energy (IDA ICE),” [Online]. Available:
objective optimization of building envelope design for life cycle environmental
http://www.equa.se/en/ida-ice. (Accessed 1 November 2013).
performance. Energy and Build. 126, 524e534.
European Commision, 20 Sep 2011. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. COM
Br€
annare, J., 2012. Applicability of the CLT Panels in the Finnish Low Rise Building
201.571 final ([Online]).
(In Finnish). Rovaniemi University of Applied Science.
European Commision, December 2012. Europe 2020: Europe’s Growth Strategy
Chen, T., Burnett, J., Chau, C., 2001. Analysis of embodied energy use in residential
([Online]).
building of Hong Kong. Energy 26, 323e340.
European Union, 2010. The directive 2010/31/EU of the European parliament and of
Cole, R., Kernan, P., 1996. Life-cycle energy use in office buildings. Build. Environ. 31,
the council of 19 may 2010 on the energy performance of buildings. Off. J. Eur.
307e317.
Union 53.
Cole, R., Wong, K., 1996. Minimising environmental impact of high-rise residential
European Union, 2012. Commision delegated regulation No 244/2012 of 16 January
 S.K. Pal et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 143 (2017) 1021e1035 1035

2012 supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of European Parliament and of the Motuziene, _ V., Rogoza, A., Lapinskiene, _ V., Vilutiene,
_ T., 2016. “Construction solu-
Council for calculating cost optimal levels of minimum energy performance for tions for energy efficient single-family house based on its life cycle multi-
buildings and building elements. Off. J. Eur. Union. L81/18e36. criteria analysis: a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 532e541.
Ferrara, M., Fabrizio, E., Virgone, J., Filippi, M., 2014. A simulation-based optimiza- Noerwasito, V., 2011. Evaluation of embodied energy and construction costs for thr
tion method for cost-optimal analysis of nearly Zero Energy Buildings. Energy design of low-rise apartments for low-income residents in Surabaya, Indonesia.
Build. 84, 442e457. J. Civ. Eng. Archit. 5 (12), 1142e1146.
Finnish Ministry of the Environment, 2008. Pientalon Huoltokirja (Single Family Nyugen, A., Reiter, S., Rigo, P., 2014. A review on simulation based optimization
House Service Book) [Online]. Available: http://www.neuvoo.fi/LinkClick.aspx? methods applied to building performance analysis. Appl. Energy 113,
fileticket¼vEPqO6/HHDc¼ (Accessed 7 November 2013). 1043e1058.
Gossard, D., Lartigue, B., Thellier, F., 2013. Multi-objective optimization of a building Orioli, A., Gangi, A.D., 2014. Review of the energy and economic parameters
envelope for thermal performance using genetic algorithms and artificial neural involved in the effectiveness of grid-connected PV systems installed in multo-
network. Energy Build. 67, 253e260. storey buildings. Appl. Energy 113, 955e969.
Haahtela, Y., Kiiras, J., 2013. Talonrakennuksen Kustannustieto 2013 (Building Ottele M., K. Perini, A. Fraaij, E. Haasa and R. Raiteri, “Comparative life cycle analysis
Construction Cost Data 2013). Haahtela-kehitys, Helsinki. for green facades and living wall systems,” Energy Build. , vol. 43, no. M. Ottele
,
Ha€ma €lainen, T., 2014. Why Townhouses? a Comparative Study of Emerging Housing K. Perini, A.L.A. Fraaij, E.M. Haasa, R. Raiteri, pp. 3419e3429.
Concepts in Helsinki and Stockholm. Aalto Energy Efficiency reserach Palolahti, T., Kivim€ aki, C., Maki, T., 2013. ROK - Rakennusosien Kustannuksia.
programme. Rakennustieto Oy.
Hamdy, M., Hasan, A., Siren, K., 2011. Applying a multi-objective optimization Palonen, M., Hamdy, M., Hasan, A., 2013. MOBO A new software for multi objective
approach for design of low-emission cost-effective dwellings. Build. Environ. 46 building performance optimization. In: In 13th Conference of International
(no. 1). Building Performance Simulation Association, Chambery, France.
Hamdy, M., Hasan, A., Siren, A., 2011. Impact of adaptive thermal comfort criteria on Pikas, E., Thalfeldt, M., Kurnitski, J., 2014. Cost optimal and nearly zero energy
building energy use and cooling equipment size using a multi-objective opti- building solutions for office buildings. Energy Build. 74, 30e42.
mization scheme. Energy Build. 43 (9), 2055e2067. Rasmussen, F.N., Birgisdo
ttir, H., 2016. Life cycle embodied and operational energy
Hamdy, M., Hasan, A., Siren, K., 2013. A multi-stage optimization method for cost- use in a typical, new Danish single-family house. In: CLIMA 2016-Proceedings of
optimal and nearly-zero-energy building solutions in-line with the EPBD recast the 12th REHVA World Congress, Aalborg.
2010. Energy Build. 56, 189e203. RIL 249, 2009. Low Energy Construction, Residential Buildings (Helsinki, Finland).
Hasan, A., Vuolle, M., Siren, K., 2008. Minimization of life cycle cost of a detached Safdarian, A., Degefa, M.Z., Lehtonen, M., Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M., 2014. Distribution
house using combined simulation and optimization. Build. Environ. 43 (no. 12). network reliability improvements in presence of demand response. IET Gener.
Hernandez, P., Kenny, P., 2010. From net energy to zero energy buildings: defining Transm. Distrib. 8, 2027e2035.
life cycle zero energy buildings (LC-ZEB). Energy Build. 42, 815e821. Sahlin, P., 1996. “Modeling and Simulation Methods for Modular Continuous System
IDA ICE, “IDA Indoor Climate and Energy,” [Online]. Available: http://www.equa.se/ in Buildings. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm. PhD thesis.
ice/intro.html. Sartori, I., Hestnes, A., 2007. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-
Ingrao, C., Scrucca, F., Tricase, C., Ashrubali, F., 2016. A comparative Life Cycle energy buildings: a review article. Energy Build. 39, 249e257.
Assessment of external wall-compositions for cleaner construction solutions in Sierra-Pe
rez, J., Boschmonart-Rives, J., Gabarrell, X., 2016. Environmental assess-
buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 124, 283e298. ment of façade-building systems and thermal insulation materials for different
Islam, H., Jollands, M., Setunge, S., Haque, N., Bhuiyan, M.A., 2015. Life cycle climatic conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 102e113.
assesment and life cycle cost implications for roofing and floor design in resi- Statistics Finland, 2010. Buildings and free-time residences (e-publication). ISSN:
dential buildings. Energy Build. 104, 250e263. 1798e6796. Building stock 2010, Helsinki ([Online]).
ISO 14040 2006, “Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assesment - Principles Statistics Finland, 2014. Building Cost Indices [Online]. Available: http://www.stat.
and Frameworks,” International Organization for Standardization. fi/til/rki/index_en.html [Accessed May 2014].
ISO 14044 2006, “Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assesment - Re- Statistics Finland, May 2015. Energy Prices [Online]. Available: http://www.stat.fi/
quirements and Guidelines,” International Organization for Standardization. til/ehi/index_en.html [Accessed 2015].
Jiao, Y., Lloyd, C., Wakes, S., 2012. The relationship between total embodied energy Stazi, F., Alessio, M., Munafo, P., 2012. Life-cycle assessment approach for the
and cost of commercial building. Energy Build. 52, 20e27. optimization of sustainable building envelopes: an application on solar wall
Kalamees, T., Jylha, K., Tiet€ av€ €nen, R., Saku, S.,
ainen, H., Jokisalo, J., Ilomets, S., Hyvo systems. Build. Environ. 58, 278e288.
2012. Development of weighing factors for climate variables for selecting the Stephan, A., Crawford, R., Myttenaere, H., 2013. A comprehensive assessment of the
energy reference year according to the EN ISO 15927-4 standard. Energy Build. life cycle energy demand of passive house. Appl. Energy 112, 23e34.
47, 53e60. Takano, A., Hughes, M., Winter, S., 2014. A multidisciplinary approach to sustainable
Karimpour, M., Belusko, M., Xing, K., Bruno, F., 2014. Minimising the life cycle en- building material selection: a case study in a Finnish context. Build. Environ. 82,
ergy of buildings: review and analysis. Build. Environ. 73, 106e114. 526e535.
Koivuniemi, J., 2005. Dimensioning Standards of Domestic Hot Water Flow and Takano, A., Pal, S.K., Kuittinen, M., Alanne, K., Hughes, M., Wnter, S., 2015. “The effect
Temperature Criteria According to Microbiological State of the Water in District of material selection on life cycle energy balance: a case study on a hypothetical
Heated Houses. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Helsinki University of building model in Finland. Build. Environ. 89, 192e202.
Technology, Helsinki. Takano, A., Hafner, A., Linkosalmi, L., Ott, S., Hughes, M., Winter, S., 2015. Life cycle
Laihosola, N., 2013. Comparison of Costs between CLT Structured Walls and Framing assesment of wood construction according to the normative standards. Eur. J.
Wall Elements. Karekian University of Applied Science. Wood Wood Prod. 73, 299e312.
Langston, Y., Langston, C., 2008. Reliability of building enbodied energy modelling: Thormak, C., 2002. “A low energy building in a life cycle - its embodied energy,
an analysis of 30 Melbourne case studies. Constr. Manag. Econ. 26 (2), 147e160. energy need for operation and recycling potential. Build. Environ. 37, 429e435.
Langston, Y., Langston, C., 2009. The inherent building energy-cost relationship: an Travesi, J., Maxwell, G., Klaassen, C., Holtz, M., 2001. Empirical Validation of Iowa
analysis of thirty Melbourne case studies. Aust. J. Constr. Econ. Build. 9 (1), Energy Resource Station Building Energy Analysis Simulation Models. IEA.
9e18. Ucar, A., Balo, F., 2009. Effect of fuel type on the optimum thickness of selected
Lollini, R., Barozzi, G., Fasano, G., Meroni, I., Zinzi, M., 2006. “Optimisation of opaque insulation materials for the four different climatic regions of Turkey. Appl.
components of the building envelope. Energy, economic and environmental Energy 86 (5), 730e736.
issues. Build. Environ. 41 (8), 1001e1013. Vera, J.T., Laukkanen, T., Siren, K., 2014. Multi-objective optimization of hybrid
Marszal, A., Heiselberg, P., Bourrelle, J., Musall, E., Voss, K., Sartori, I., Napolitano, A., photovoltaicethermal collectors integrated in a DHW heating system. Energy
2011. Zero Energy Building - a review of definitions and calculation method- Build. 74, 78e90.
ologies. Energy Build. 43, 971e979. Verbeeck, G., Hens, H., 2010. Life cycle inventory of buildings: a contribution
Ministry of Environment, 2012. National Building Code of Finland - Section D3 on analysis. Build. Environ. 45, 964e967.
Energy Management in Buildings. Helsinki, Finland. Wang, W., Zmeureanu, R., Rivard, H., 2005. Applying multi-objective genetic algo-
Mithraratne, N., Vale, B., 2007. Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses. rithms in green building design optimization. Build. Environ. 10, 1512e1525.
Build. Environ. 42, 1761e1769. Wright, J., Mourshed, M., 2009. Geometric optimization of fenestration. In: Pro-
Mohammed, T., Greenough, R., Taylor, S., Meida, L., Acquaye, A., 2013. Operational vs ceedings of the 11th International IBPSA Conference. Scotland, Glasgow.
embodied emission in buildings - a review of current trends. Energy Build. 66, Yung, P., Lam, C., Yu, C., 2013. An audit of life cycle energy analysis of buildings.
232e245. Habitat Int. 39, 43e54.