Existing benchmark systems for assessing global warming potential of buildings – Analysis of IEA EBC Annex 72 cases

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly being used as a tool by the building industry and actors to assess the global warming potential (GWP) of building activities. In several countries, life cycle based requirements on GWP are currently being incorporated into building regulations. After the establishment of general calculation rules for building LCA, a crucial next step is to evaluate the performance of the specific building design. For this, reference values or benchmarks are needed, but there are several approaches to defining these. This study presents an overview of existing benchmark systems documented in seventeen cases from the IEA EBC Annex 72 project on LCA of buildings. The study characterizes their different types of methodological background and displays the reported values. Full life cycle target values for residential and non-residential buildings are found around 10-20 kg CO$_2$e/m$^2$/y, whereas reference values are found between 20-80 kg CO$_2$e/m$^2$/y. Possible embodied target- and reference values are found between 1-12 kg CO$_2$e/m$^2$/y for both residential and non-residential buildings. Benchmark stakeholders can use the insights from this study to understand the justifications of the background methodological choices and to gain an overview of the level of GWP performance across benchmark systems

Existing benchmark systems for assessing global warming potential of buildings – Analysis of IEA EBC Annex 72 cases

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is increasingly being used as a tool by the building industry and actors to assess the global warming potential (GWP) of building activities. In several countries, life cycle based requirements on GWP are currently being incorporated into building regulations. After the establishment of general calculation rules for building LCA, a crucial next step is to evaluate the performance of the specific building design. For this, reference values or benchmarks are needed, but there are several approaches to defining these. This study presents an overview of existing benchmark systems documented in seventeen cases from the IEA EBC Annex 72 project on LCA of buildings. The study characterizes their different types of methodological background and displays the reported values. Full life cycle target values for residential and non-residential buildings are found around 10-20 kg CO2e/m2/y, whereas reference values are found between 20-80 kg CO2e/m2/y. Possible embodied target- and reference values are found between 1-12 kg CO2e/m2/y for both residential and non-residential buildings. Benchmark stakeholders can use the insights from this study to understand the justifications of the background methodological choices and to gain an overview of the level of GWP performance across benchmark systems.publishedVersio

Comparison of the greenhouse gas emissions of a high-rise residential building assessed with different national LCA approaches – IEA EBC Annex 72

Introduction: The international research project IEA EBC Annex 72 investigates the life cycle related environmental impacts caused by buildings. The project aims inter alia to harmonise LCA approaches on buildings. Methods: To identify major commonalities and discrepancies among national LCA approaches, reference buildings were defined to present and compare the national approaches. A residential high-rise building located in Tianjin, China, was selected as one of the reference buildings. The main construction elements are reinforced concrete shear walls, beams and floor slabs. The building has an energy reference area of 4566 m2 and an operational heating energy demand of 250 MJ/m2a. An expert team provided information on the quantities of building materials and elements required for the construction, established a BIM model and quantified the operational energy demand. Results: The greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts of the building were quantified using 17 country-specific national assessment methods and LCA databases. Comparisons of the results are shown on the level of building elements as well as the complete life cycle of the building. Conclusions: The results of these assessments show that the main differences lie in the LCA background data used, the scope of the assessment and the reference study period applied. Despite the variability in the greenhouse gas emissions determined with the 17 national methods, the individual results are relevant in the respective national context of the method, data, tool and benchmark used. It is important that environmental benchmarks correspond to the particular LCA approach and database of a country in which the benchmark is applied. Furthermore, the results imply to include building technologies as their contribution to the overall environmental impacts is not negligible. Grant support: The authors thank the IEA for its organizational support and the funding organizations in the participating countries for their financial support.IEA -International Energy Agency(undefined

Comparison of the environmental assessment of an identical office building with national methods

The IEA EBC Annex 72 focuses on the assessment of the primary energy demand, greenhouse gas emissions and environmental impacts of buildings during production, construction, use (including repair and replacement) and end of life (dismantling), i.e. during the entire life cycle of buildings. In one of its activities, reference buildings (size, materialisation, operational energy demand, etc.) were defined on which the existing national assessment methods are applied using national (if available) databases and (national/regional) approaches. The ?be2226? office building in Lustenau, Austria was selected as one of the reference buildings. TU Graz established a BIM model and quantified the amount of building elements as well as construction materials required and the operational energy demand. The building assessment was carried out using the same material and energy demand but applying the LCA approach used in the different countries represented by the participating Annex experts. The results of these assessments are compared in view of identifying major discrepancies. Preliminary findings show that the greenhouse gas emissions per kg of building material differ up to a factor of two and more. Major differences in the building assessments are observed in the transports to the construction site (imports) and the construction activities as well as in the greenhouse gas emissions of the operational energy demand (electricity). The experts document their practical difficulties and how they overcame them. The results of this activity are used to better target harmonisation efforts.IEA -International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement(Slovenia

Implications of using systematic decomposition structures to organize building LCA information: A comparative analysis of national standards and guidelines - IEA EBC ANNEX 72

Introduction: The application of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) technique to a building requires the collection and organization of a large amount of data over its life cycle. The systematic decomposition method can be used to classify building components, elements and materials, overcome specific difficulties that are encountered when attempting to complete the life cycle inventory and increase the reliability and transparency of results. In this paper, which was developed in the context of the research project IEA EBC Annex 72, we demonstrate the implications of taking such approach and describe the results of a comparison among different national standards/guidelines that are used to conduct LCA for building decomposition.Methods: We initially identified the main characteristics of the standards/guidelines used by Annex participant countries. The “be2226” reference office building was used as a reference to apply the different national standards/guidelines related to building decomposition. It served as a basis of comparison, allowing us to identify the implications of using different systems/standards in the LCA practice, in terms of how these differences affect the LCI structures, LCA databases and the methods used to communicate results. We also analyzed the implications of integrating these standards/guidelines into Building Information Modelling (BIM) to support LCA. Results: Twelve national classification systems/standards/guidelines for the building decomposition were compared. Differences were identified among the levels of decomposition and grouping principles, as well as the consequences of these differences that were related to the LCI organization. In addition, differences were observed among the LCA databases and the structures of the results. Conclusions: The findings of this study summarize and provide an overview of the most relevant aspects of using a standardized building decomposition structure to conduct LCA. Recommendations are formulated on the basis of these findings

Dynamic and consequential LCA aspects in multi-objective optimisation for NZEB design

International audienceMulti-objective optimisation coupled with building energy simulation (BES) and life cycle assessment (LCA) models is a promising method to eco-design net-zero energy buildings (NZEBs) in line with sustainable objectives such as UN SDG's goals 7, 11, 12 and 13. This paper presents a method of building multi-objective optimisation based on NSGA-II coupled with the BES model COMFIE and the building LCA tool EQUER to identify NZEB designs that minimise construction costs and GHG emissions. A dynamic electricity mix model was implemented in LCA to evaluate more precisely time-related impacts of heating and solar photovoltaic production. Three different LCA approaches defining the multi-objective optimisation problem were compared: static LCA (considering an average annual electricity mix), dynamic attributionnal LCA (average hourly mix) and dynamic consequential LCA (marginal hourly mix). Results show minor differences in optimums quality between static and dynamic attributionnal approaches but important differences in optimums design parameters between attributionnal and consequential approaches. The influence of the LCA approach on multi-objective optimisation results emphasises the need to specify guidelines for practitioners about the choice of the LCA approach

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT APPLIED TO URBAN PROJECTS

International audienceCities contribute to a large extent to anthropogenic environmental impacts, and their population is growing. Sustainability requires to provide suitable spaces for dwelling and working, while preserving resources, human health, biodiversity and climate. In this context, the aim of our work is to better understand the systemic links between decisions made by urban designers and consequences like emissions of pollutants and related impacts. Urban developments are complex systems including many interacting elements: buildings, outside spaces, networks, and occupants. Temporal and spatial transfer of pollution should be avoided, as well as replacing some impacts by others (e.g. emitting less greenhouse gases but increasing health problems). Such complex issues are generally addressed using qualitative approaches. But the importance of risks would justify more efforts towards a more rational decision making process. The objective is then to develop tools helping such a process

Dynamic LCA applied to buildings and urban districts

International audienceExisting Building LCA tools are based upon a static method, considering yearly average processes and impacts. This paper presents a dynamic method that has been developed to evaluate electricity-related impacts in buildings. Results on case studies show important discrepancy between the static and dynamic methods. This study is a first step towards the introduction of consequential LCA parameters in life-cycle assessment of buildings