No description available.

I och med de ändringar som trädde i kraft 1993/94 då funktionskrav för konstruktioner infördes istället för de enskilda materialens egenskaper lade grunden till att det numer är möjligt att bygga byggnader som kräver en hög grad av brandskydd i trä och andra material baserade på brännbart material. Denna ändring innebar bland annat att nya och innovativa produkter hade chans att etablera sig på den svenska marknaden, såsom isolering tillverkad av returpapper och träfiber. I och med träets naturliga förmåga att till viss grad motstå brand, bland annat genom att bilda ett skyddande kolskikt, i kombination med tillsats av flamskyddsmedel som försvårar antändning ytterligare resulterar i att dessa material numer har möjlighet att konkurrera mot obrännbara material gällande brandsäkerhet i byggnader. De testmetoder som idag avgör en produkts brandklass sker under kontrollerade former med temperaturer som inte motsvarar en fullt utvecklad brand. Detta medför att det utifrån ett materials brandklass, eller s.k. euroklass, inte går att förutse materialets brandmotstånd under en fullt utvecklad brand. Inte heller under ett så kallat Room Corner Test, som ska motsvara brandens tidiga skede, har det visat sig att euroklassen inte alltid motsvarar de krav som ställs för att förhindra vidare förbränning och övertändning. Däremot går det att utifrån euroklass se mönster i dess klassificering och förmåga att sprida glödbrand.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the climate impact of building materials used in the pilot project “Klimatpositiva hyreshus av trä i Västerås” by ETC Bygg. The purpose also included studying the demands on building materials when it comes to climate impact as well as the challenges of building with more climate friendly materials. Method: This study is based on a literature study and case study of the building materials used in the pilot project “Klimatpositiva hyreshus av trä i Västerås”. Results: By using the climate-enhanced concrete instead of conventional concrete in the building foundation, the climate impact is reduced by 45%. If the storage of carbon in wood is taken into account, the wooden based materials used in the buildings are considered the most climate friendly. Also, when carbon storage is not taken into account, the wooden frame of cross-laminated timber used in studied buildings results in lower climate impact than conventional concrete. In most cases even better than climate enhanced concrete. The wooden fibre insulation used has one of the lowest climate impact, together with cellulose, when the carbon storage is considered. Data of its impact, without carbon storage, is missing. Literature shows that insulation of cellulose from recycled material, like the one used in the studied buildings, has among the lowest climate impact, whether the storage of carbon is included or not. However, data of the specific cellulose used in the buildings is missing. The results also show that there is possible to make more climate friendly options within a group of materials. In the studied project there has been no greater challenges when using selected materials. Currently there are no demands considering greenhouse gas emissions from building materials. Although, there is regulation in the law which aims at a sustainable development and there is national environmental goals and goals for the building sector to lower the climate impact. Conclusions: By using climate enhanced concrete in the foundation and wood as frame material and insulation, the studied buildings have reduced their climate impact in comparison to usage of more conventional building materials during the product stage. Some major challenges with used materials in the studied buildings do not appear to have existed, which differs from what is described in the literature, where several challenges are mentioned. By using building materials with lower climate impact, it can be considered a way to work towards the goals and regulations considering sustainable development.

Rapporten är en jämförelse av tre olika isoleringsmaterial för ytterväggar, mineralull, cellulosaisolering och cellplast. Jämförelsen fokuserar på materialens kostnad och egenskaper för brand, fukt och miljöpåverkan. Rapportens resultat är att mineralull är det isoleringsmaterial som rekommenderas, men cellulosaisolering kan vara ett bra alternativ i vissa avseenden. Cellplast rekommenderas ej till isolering av ytterväggar. / This paper is written as a thesis project at Linköping University. The environment is one of the main issues in society today, and the construction industry must contribute as well, in order to achieve sustainability. Insulation is an essential part when building a house, and the production process often demands a high amount of raw material and energy. Therefore it is important to choose the kind of insulation which makes as little impact on the environment as possible. In addition to the environment, there are other important aspects to consider as well. How the materials can withstand moisture in different ways, how they react in case of a fire and what the cost is to purchase and install. The purpose of this paper is to compare the two most common insulation materials today, mineral wool and expanded polystyrene, with cellulose insulation, which is often marketed as a more environmentally friendly alternative, and find out which type of insulation is the best, based on these aspects. The paper is written as a review study of previous papers, literature on the subject and information from manufacturers and trade organizations. The main parts of the paper consist of the third chapter Teori which describes the different insulation materials, and the fourth chapter Empiri which describes the fire and moisture properties, environmental impact and cost of the materials. The result of the paper is that mineral wool is the best insulation material for walls in most cases. Mineral wool is the cheapest, has good fire properties and has the lowest carbon dioxide emissions of the compared board materials. Cellulose insulation can be a good alternative from an environmental standpoint as it is possible to recycle instead of depositing, but in that case you should choose loose fill insulation which is made from circulated newspapers. Expanded polystyrene is not recommended as insulation for walls as it has the highest carbon dioxide emissions and has poor fire properties. / <p>Examensarbetet är utfört vid Institutionen för teknik och naturvetenskap (ITN) vid Tekniska fakulteten, Linköpings universitet</p>