I dagens samhälle ligger fokus på hållbarhet vilket ställer höga krav på konstruktören vid utformningav stommen till flerbostadshus. En stor del av CO2-utsläppen inom byggprocessen kan härledas tillmaterialvalet där förbränning av kalk inom cementindustrin och framställning av stål ur järnmalm ärbland de främsta faktorerna till utsläppen. Denna rapport ämnar sig åt att ta fram vilka skillnader och likheter som ställs mellan två stomsystemmed olika bjälklag; ett utförande i korslimmat trä, hädanefter benämnt KL-trä, och ett utförande ihåldäcksbjälklag. De båda objekten har givits identiska förutsättningar, med reservation förbjälklagsmaterial, med en stomme i stål med varierande tvärsnittsprofiler. Data för CO2-ekvivalenter och pris av respektive stommaterial har undersökts och sammanställts itabellform där de två byggnaderna utvärderas och där resultatet diskuteras i analysdelen. Resultatetger svar på vilket element som presterar bäst till en kontorsbyggnad med två våningar med hänsyn tillkostnad och CO2-ekvivalenter för enskilda profiler sammanställts för de två byggnaderna. Dimensionering av balkar har genomförts med avseende på momentkapacitet, pelare med avseende påknäckning av centrisk tryckkraft, plan böjknäckning med moment av vindlast och normalkraft motpelare. Till visualisering av stommen har Tekla Structures använts och för verifiering avlastnedräkningar har FEM-Design 20 nyttjats. Rapportens ekonomidel avser kostnader av de två byggnaderna, vilka redovisats i tabellform medkostnad per stål- och bjälklagsprofil. Klumpsumma för respektive fall har sammanställts och idiskussionsdelen till denna rapport ges förklaringar och slutsatser. / In society today, the focus is on sustainability, which places high demands on the designer when designing the structural frame for apartment buildings. A large part of the CO2 emissions in the construction process can be traced to the choice of material, where the combustion of lime in the cement industry and the production of steel from iron ore are among the main factors for the emissions. This report intends to provide answers to the differences and similarities between two frame systems with different floors slabs; a version in cross-laminated wood, hereinafter referred to as KL-trä (CLTwood), and a version in hollow core slabs. The two objects have been given identical conditions, with a reservation for flooring material, with a steel frame with varying cross-sectional profiles. Data for CO2 equivalents and price of each frame material have been examined and compiled in tabular form where the two buildings are evaluated and results are discussed in the analysis part. The result provides an answer as to which element performs best for an office building with two floors with regard to cost and CO2 equivalents for individual profiles compiled for the two buildings. Dimensioning of beams has been carried out with regard to bending moment capacity, columns with respect to buckling of concentric pressure force and flat bending buckling with elements of wind load and normal force against columns. Tekla Structures has been used to visualize the frame and FEM-Design20 has been used to verify load counts. The financial part of the report refers to costs of the two buildings, which are reported in tabular form with cost per steel and floor profile. The lump sum for each case has been compiled and in the discussion section of this report explanations and conclusions are given to the financial part.

The Swedish national plan for reapproval of hydropower describes that hydropower plants (HPPs) are required to be reassessed to ensure that modern environmental conditions are set for the permits. Since dams and HPPs create barriers for migrating fish and consequently disfavor biological diversity, one consequence of the national plan is that fishways are being constructed. This, in combination with an old, unfinished approval procedure from the 1960’s, resulted in the construction of three up- and downstream fishways in Mora municipality, at the HPPs in Spjutmo, Blyberg and Väsa. To fulfill requirements in regard to the fishway’s incline and safety, but at the same time minimize the need of space, the fishways have new, innovative and not yet tested design features. One of these features is the “parking garage” layout of the upstream fishway. Despite these features, the fishways take up a large amount of space and thus require large amounts of blasting, excavation and materials such as concrete and steel parts. These are climate impact influence intensive procedures and materials, but the construction has so far not been evaluated from a climate impact perspective. This, in combination with a lack of studies on the climate impact of fishways, has resulted in this project.The aim of this project was to examine the climate impact caused by the fishways in Spjutmo and Blyberg, to identify what affects the total climate impact as well as providing measures that could reduce the climate impact for future similar fishways. To provide an extensive overview of the climate impact that the fishways cause during their entire lifetime, the method life cycle analysis (LCA) was used. The construction of the fishways at Väsa HPP starts later than for Spjutmo and Blyberg, and therefore Väsa is excluded from the scope due to the lack of required information.The fishways in Spjutmo and Blyberg have the same design features, but the material consumptions differ due to their differences in head. Spjutmo’s head is 21,4 meter and Blyberg’s is 11 meter. A larger head generally results in a longer fishway which in turn results in a more material consuming construction. This resulted in the total life cycle climate impact being twice as big for Spjutmo as for Blyberg, 2 807 tonne CO2-eq respectively 1 361 tonne CO2-eq. The resource extraction is the LCA- phase that contributes the most. Concrete and its reinforcement have the biggest share of that impact, followed by mechanical parts and other steel products, road construction process in Spjutmo and the excavation process in Blyberg. Based on this result, it can be concluded that the materials and components contribute more to the fishways’ total climate impact, rather than processes. Roughly 80 % of the total climate impact origins from the upstream fishway, while the rest either stems from the downstream fishway or others. Sensitivity analyses include the climate impact caused by the fishways using some water that otherwise could have been used to generate electricity from, and the result indicates that all examined alternative energy sources would result in larger climate impact compared to if the electricity was generated by hydropower.One of the result’s uncertainties is that the fishways were under construction while this project was performed. Therefore some assumptions was made to compensate for lack of data. For example, the future electricity consumption was scaled up based off the then used electricity data. However, even if some amounts of required materials and processes changed as time went by, the changes did not make a significant difference from the bigger perspective. Sensitivity analyses that examined the climate impact of a delay in the construction also showed that the processes that are most likely to continue turned out to have a relatively small climate impact. Thus, this issue might not be as problematic as initially thought.Although the result is presented in total values, the result is also provided per a functional unit (FU) level in accordance with traditional LCA methodology. This was to facilitate a comparison for future LCAs on other fishways. The FU in this project was decided to be “One meter head for a technical, stationary, up- and downstream fishway in connection to a medium or large run-of-river hydropower plant in a cold tempered climate zone”. For future studies, LCAs on different types of fishways using the proposed FU is recommended.