Buildings LCA and digitalization: Designers\u27 toolbox based on a survey

In a context of digitalization and increasing quality requirements, the building sector is facing an increasing level of complexity regarding its design process. This results in a growing number of involved actors from different domains, a multitude of tasks to be completed and a higher degree of needed expertise. New buildings are also required to reach higher performances in terms of environmental quality. To that regard, the exploitation of the full potential of digital tools can facilitate the integration of environmental aspects in the planning process, limit productivity shortcomings and reduce environmental impacts, which can result from an unaware decision making. Building environmental assessment can be performed through several Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)-based tools. “Pure calculation” tools quantify final buildings\u27 environmental potential, while “complex tools” additionally support decision making during the planning process. It is often difficult to choose the best suitable tool, which strongly depends on the user\u27s needs. Within the IEA EBC Annex 72, a survey was realized with the main objective of creating a comprehensive overview of the existing tools dedicated to buildings LCA. The questionnaire included the usability, functionality, compliance, data reliability and interoperability of the analysed tools. Lastly, based on the survey outcomes and their critical assessment, a procedure for the identification and selection of a tool has been proposed based on user\u27s needs. As a result, this work outlines main features of currently available building LCA tools, for which there is a harmonized status in terms of usability and overall applied LCA methodology. Despite the need for more automatized workflows, tools\u27 embedding is mostly not yet applicable in system chains or limited to a restricted number of tools

Comparison of 16 national methods in the life cycle assessment of carbon storage in wood products in a reference building

Wood and bio-based construction products are perceived as a way to use renewable resources, to save energy and to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG)-emissions during production and to store carbon during the entire service life of the building. This article compares the carbon footprint per kilogram of wood products (softwood beams, plywood, oriented strand board panel, and fibre board) from the perspective of the life cycle assessment methodology for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of practitioners from 16 countries participating in the IEA Annex 72. These materials are used in PAL6 softwood structure multi-residential building. This article aims at comparing the carbon footprint accounting methods from 16 countries for PAL6 multi-residential building. Each national team applied the reference study period (RSP), life cycle modules covered, modelling rules, the geographical scope of inventory data as well as the LCA database according to its specific national method. The results show that there are three types of methodology to assess a building with biogenic content (0/0, -1/+1, -1/+1*). The results were more variable plywood, oriented strand board, and fibreboard than the softwood beams due to the variability in the wood transformation processes among the countries. A net negative carbon balance was obtained for the softwood beam for the countries using -1/+1* with a clear assumption of the fraction of the carbon permanently stored at the end-of-life (EoL). The carbon storage is only possible if it is secured at the EoL. Participating countries apply different definitions of permanence and EoL scenarios. Guideline on assessing, monitoring, and legally reporting carbon storage at the EoL are needed, based on concertation between standard, life cycle assessment, wood industry, and climate expertspublishedVersio

Comparison of 16 national methods in the life cycle assessment of carbon storage in wood products in a reference building

Wood and bio-based construction products are perceived as a way to use renewable resources, to save energy and to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG)-emissions during production and to store carbon during the entire service life of the building. This article compares the carbon footprint per kilogram of wood products (softwood beams, plywood, oriented strand board panel, and fibre board) from the perspective of the life cycle assessment methodology for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of practitioners from 16 countries participating in the IEA Annex 72. These materials are used in PAL6 softwood structure multi-residential building. This article aims at comparing the carbon footprint accounting methods from 16 countries for PAL6 multi-residential building. Each national team applied the reference study period (RSP), life cycle modules covered, modelling rules, the geographical scope of inventory data as well as the LCA database according to its specific national method. The results show that there are three types of methodology to assess a building with biogenic content (0/0, -1/+1, -1/+1*). The results were more variable plywood, oriented strand board, and fibreboard than the softwood beams due to the variability in the wood transformation processes among the countries. A net negative carbon balance was obtained for the softwood beam for the countries using -1/+1* with a clear assumption of the fraction of the carbon permanently stored at the end-of-life (EoL). The carbon storage is only possible if it is secured at the EoL. Participating countries apply different definitions of permanence and EoL scenarios. Guideline on assessing, monitoring, and legally reporting carbon storage at the EoL are needed, based on concertation between standard, life cycle assessment, wood industry, and climate experts

Carbon footprint assessment of a wood multi-residential building considering biogenic carbon

Wood and other bio-based building materials are often perceived as a good choice from a climate mitigation perspective. This article compares the life cycle assessment of the same multi-residential building from the perspective of 16 countries participating in the international project Annex 72 of the International Energy Agency to determine the effects of different datasets and methods of accounting for biogenic carbon in wood construction. Three assessment methods are herein considered: two recognized in the standards (the so-called 0/0 method and −1/+1 method) and a variation of the latter (−1/+1* method) used in Australia, Canada, France, and New Zealand. The 0/0 method considers neither fixation in the production stage nor releases of biogenic carbon at the end of a wood product's life. In contrast, the −1/+1 method accounts for the fixation of biogenic carbon in the production stage and its release in the end-of-life stage, irrespective of the disposal scenario (recycling, incineration or landfill). The −1/+1 method assumes that landfills offer only a temporary sequestration of carbon. In the −1/+1* variation, landfills and recycling are considered a partly permanent sequestration of biogenic carbon and thus fewer emissions are accounted for in the end-of-life stage. We examine the variability of the calculated life cycle-based greenhouse gas emissions calculated for a case study building by each participating country, within the same assessment method and across the methods. The results vary substantially. The main reasons for deviations are whether or not landfills and recycling are considered a partly permanent sequestration of biogenic carbon and a mismatch in the biogenic carbon balance. Our findings support the need for further research and to develop practical guidelines to harmonize life cycle assessment methods of buildings with bio-based materials.This publication has received funding from the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (grant number SI/501549-01); the European Union’s Interreg 2 Seas 2014–2020 Programme under grant number 2S05-036 CBCI; the French Agency for Ecological Transition (ADEME); in Germany, from Project Management Organisation Jülich (Projekttr¨ ager Jülich: PtJ) and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie: BMWi) (grant number 03ET1550A); the Danish Energy Agency under the Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Programme (grant 64012-0133 and 64020-2119);in Austrian by the Austrian Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) via IEA Research Cooperation via the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) Grant #864142; the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports within and within project Interexcellence No. LTT19022; Natural Resources Canada and Quebec Wood Export Bureau (QWEB)