A cross-platform modular framework for building Life Cycle Assessment

In recent years the application of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for assessing and improving the environmental performance of buildings has increased. At the same time, the automated optimization of building designs is gaining attraction for both design and research purposes. In this regard, a number of issues persist when aiming to optimize building’s environmental impacts along the design process. Firstly, as LCA applies a life cycle perspective, many aspects have to be considered (e.g. energy demand in operation as well as consumption of resources and energy for production and end of life treatment) and a variety of specific calculations is needed (e.g. building energy performance simulation, material quantity take-off). Secondly, sophisticated software packages are available and being used for each of these calculations (e.g. software for building modelling, dynamic energy simulation, quantity surveying). Though many of these software packages are currently standalone applications that rely on human interaction, there is an increasing trend to provide an application programming interface (API) that enables customization and automation. Thirdly, the mentioned processes and calculations are influencing each other in various ways and several scenarios have to be assessed. Thus, a comprehensive and modular approach is required that promotes interconnectivity of the different software solutions and automation of the assessment. In this paper we propose a modular cross-platform framework for LCA of buildings aiming to support flexibility and scalability of building LCA. We present a conceptual framework, example data exchange requirements and highlight potential implementation strategies

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

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

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

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