This report has been carried out together with Bonava with the purpose to investigate the difference in climate impact and cost of both concrete and wooden frames in apartment buildings. This to investigate if it is profitable to build climate smart. To perform this, a life cycle analysis and a life cycle cost analysis were performed on two frames of different materials; a wooden frame called "Nästet 3" and a concrete frame called "Kv. Smugglaren”. The results of the life cycle analysis shows that the wooden frame “Nästet 3” has less climate impact in comparison to the concrete frame “Kv. Smugglaren”. The wooden frame had a total emission of 176 tons of CO2e which is about 65 kg CO2e per square meter of gross area. The result of the life cycle analysis on the concrete frame “Kv. Smugglaren” showed a climate impact of 793 tons of CO2e, which approximately is 229 kg CO2e per square meter of gross area. This study shows that a concrete frame in apartment buildings has a greater climate impact than a wooden frame. The results of the life cycle cost analysis shows that the wooden frame “Nästet 3” has the lowest frame material cost, about half as much as the concrete frame “Kv. Smugglaren”. However, it has the largest total construction cost, approximately 0.8% larger than the concrete frame. When all results are compared, it can be concluded that it does not necessarily cost more to build with more climate-smart materials. Using wood as a frame material is both more climate-smart and cheaper than concrete.

Idag ökar man isoleringen alltmer i takkonstruktion för att spara energi. Ökad mängd isolering minskar temperaturen över takets yttre delar och höjer den relativa fuktigheten där.  Dessutom finns risk att fuktigt material byggs in mellan alltmer täta skikt vilket leder till att det tar längre tid för byggfukten att torka. Detta resulterar i en ogynnsam fuktfördelning med höga relativa fuktigheter över konstruktionen där risken för mikrobiell påväxt ökar. Syftet med denna studie är att utreda hur fuktomlagring sker baserad på inbyggnadsfuktkvoten i välisolerade parallelltak. För att göra riskbedömning av olika takkonstruktioner har fuktsimuleringar gjorts i Wufi 2D där resultat analyserats i Wufi Bio för bedömning av risknivå för mikrobiell påväxt. Resultaten indikerar klart skillnad mellan val av ventilerad och oventilerad takkonstruktion. Det råder även en skillnad mellan val av isoleringsmaterial, takets färdigställandedatum, takets exponeringsriktning och takets utvändiga ytskikt. Slutsatsen är att det råder en större risk för mikrobiell påväxt hos oventilerad takkonstruktion, takkonstruktion som färdigställs under höst (den 1 oktober) jämfört med vår (den 1 april), takkonstruktion som är exponerad mot norr jämfört med söder samt takkonstruktion med utvändigt ytskikt av plåt istället för sedum. / Today there's an increase in the use of insulation in roof constructions in order to save energy. Increased amount of insulation allows temperature drops in the outer layers of the roof resulting in higher relative humidity in the surrounding construction.  There is also a risk that moist materials are built-in between tight layers which contributes to longer drying processes in order for the moisture to successfully dry out. This also contributes to an unfavorable divide in moisture with high relative humidity settling on top of the construction where risk of microbial growth is the greatest. The aim of this study is to investigate how moisture behaves based on the mounting quota of moist in well insulated parallel roof constructions. To make a risk assessment of different roof constructions, different simulations have been created in Wufi 2D where results are further analyzed in Wufi Bio for final assessment on whether there is an apparent microbial advantage. The result help shimmer light on the differences between ventilated and unventilated roof constructions. There is also an evident importance in choice of insulation materials, the finish-date for the roof, exposure vulnerability and the outer coating of the roof. The conclusion is that there is a greater risk of microbial damages in unventilated roof constructions when comparing the roof construction that is finished first of October in comparison to first of April, the roof construction that is exposed to north rather than south and to the roof construction with outer surface layer of tin rather than sedum.