All Issue

2025 Vol.19, Issue 4

Research Article

An Integrated Passive and Active Strategy for Achieving ZEB 3 in Mid- and High-rise Wood Buildings

중고층 목조건축물의 ZEB 3등급 달성을 위한 패시브·액티브 통합 전략

Yujin Kang1
,
Ji Hun Park2
,
Seong Taek Kang3
,
Sumin Kim4*
강 유진1
,
박 지훈2
,
강 성택3
,
김 수민4*
1Research Professor, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
2Ph.D. Student, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
3Graduate Student, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
4Professor, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
1연세대학교 건축공학과 연구교수
2연세대학교 건축공학과 박사과정
3연세대학교 건축공학과 석박통합과정
4연세대학교 건축공학과 교수
*Corresponding Author
30 August 2025. pp. 139-148
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

Pursuit of Zero Energy Building (ZEB) 3 in Korean mid- and high-rise wood buildings is evaluated using the national energy assessment tool ECO2, coupling an envelope–climate matrix (four wall assemblies × four climate zones encompassing six regional weather files, with continuous insulation variation) and three stepwise renewable scenarios geothermal; geothermal + rooftop photovoltaics (PV); and geothermal + rooftop PV + building-integrated PV (BIPV). In the coldest zone (Central 1), demand proved highly sensitive to wall thermal transmittance (U-value); elevated loads were driven primarily by the SIP wall_2 (U = 0.213 W/m²·K) exceeding the Central 1 requirement (U ≤ 0.170 W/m²·K). After normalizing all walls to this criterion, performance differences became negligible, while thinner SIP walls retained design/constructability advantages over cross-laminated timber (CLT). For the renewable cases (Daejeon, SIP wall_1), primary energy and self-sufficiency improved from 118.8 kWh/m²·yr, 7.21% (geothermal) to 83.9, 34.49% (geothermal+PV) and 70.0, 45.36% (geothermal+PV+BIPV); none reached ZEB 3 (≥60% self-sufficiency or <50 kWh/m²·yr). Scenarios (2)–(3) did, however, satisfy Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) thresholds for 2025 (34%) and 2030 (40%). The findings indicate that additional demand-side reductions, notably high-performance glazing (U ≤ 1.0 W/m²·K; shading coefficient, shading coefficient (SC) 0.25–0.40) and mechanical, electrical, plumbing (MEP) design/control optimization paired with expanded PV/BIPV capacity, are required to realize a practical pathway to ZEB 3.

Keywords
Wooden structure building
Energy evaluation
Zero energy building
Envelope scenario
Cross-laminated timber
키워드
목조건축
에너지평가
제로에너지건축
외피 시나리오
교차적층목재
References
1

Chang, S.J., Yoo, J., Wi, S., Kim, S. (2020). Numerical analysis on the hygrothermal behavior of building envelope according to CLT wall assembly considering the hygrothermal-environmental zone in Korea. Environ. Reserach., 191, 110198.

10.1016/j.envres.2020.110198
2

Choi, S.J., Jo, J.H., Park, S.H. (2023). Impact of Airtightness on Energy Performance in Public Rental Housing. Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems, 17(6), 366-375.

3

D’Amico, B., Pomponi, F., Hart, J. (2021). Global potential for material substitution in building construction: The case of cross laminated timber. J. Clean. Prod., 279, 123487.

10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123487
4

Kang, Y., Park, J.H., Kim, S. (2024). Analysis of Energy Performance Evaluation Tools for Zero Energy Building Certification of Wooden Structure Building. Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems, 18(4), 317-328.

5

Kang, Y., Yun, B.Y., Kim, S. (2025). Transformative enhancements in CLT housing: A three-step approach to minimizing energy consumption and carbon footprint. Energy. Build., 329, 115275.

10.1016/j.enbuild.2025.115275
6

Lechón, Y., de la Rúa, C., Lechón, J.I. (2021). Environmental footprit and life cycle costing of a family house built on CLT structure: Analysis of hotspots and improvement measures. J. Build. Eng., 39, 102239.

10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102239
7

Nunes, G., de Melo Moura, J. D., Güths, S., Atem, C., Giglio, T. (2020). Thermo-energetic performance of wooden dwellings: Benefits of cross-laminated timber in Brazilian climates. J. Build. Eng., 32, 101468.

10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101468
8

Peñaloza, D., Erlandsson, M., Falk, A. (2016). Exploring the climate impact effects of increased use of bio-based materials in buildings. Const. Build. Mater., 125, 219-226.

10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.041
9

Pierobon, F., Huang, M., Simonen, K., Ganguly, I. (2019). Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: an LCA based comparative case study in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. J. Build. Eng., 26, 100862.

10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100862
10

Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F., Riahi, K., Meinshausen, M. (2016). Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2℃. Nature, 534, 631-639.

10.1038/nature18307
11

Künzel, H.M. (1995). Simultaneous Heat and Moisture Transport in Building Components: One- and Two-Dimensional Calculation. Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.

Information
  • Publisher :Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국건축친환경설비학회
  • Journal Title :Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국건축친환경설비학회논문집
  • Volume : 19
  • No :4
  • Pages :139-148
  • Received Date : 2025-08-18
  • Revised Date : 2025-08-21
  • Accepted Date : 2025-08-21
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.22696/jkiaebs.20250012
Journal Informaiton Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems Journal of Korean Institute of Architectural Sustainable Environment and Building Systems
Manuscript Submission
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close