scholarly journals Application of Life Cycle Energy Assessment in Residential Buildings: A Critical Review of Recent Trends

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Omrany ◽  
Veronica Soebarto ◽  
Ehsan Sharifi ◽  
Ali Soltani

Residential buildings are responsible for a considerable portion of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Correspondingly, many attempts have been made across the world to minimize energy consumption in this sector via regulations and building codes. The focus of these regulations has mainly been on reducing operational energy use, whereas the impacts of buildings’ embodied energy are frequently excluded. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in analyzing the energy performance of buildings via a life cycle energy assessment (LCEA) approach. The increasing amount of research has however caused the issue of a variation in results presented by LCEA studies, in which apparently similar case studies exhibited different results. This paper aims to identify the main sources of variation in LCEA studies by critically analyzing 26 studies representing 86 cases in 12 countries. The findings indicate that the current trend of LCEA application in residential buildings suffers from significant inaccuracy accruing from incomplete definitions of the system boundary, in tandem with the lack of consensus on measurements of operational and embodied energies. The findings call for a comprehensive framework through which system boundary definition for calculations of embodied and operational energies can be standardized.

Buildings ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 230
Author(s):  
Hossein Omrany ◽  
Veronica Soebarto ◽  
Jian Zuo ◽  
Ruidong Chang

This paper aims to propose a comprehensive framework for a clear description of system boundary conditions in life cycle energy assessment (LCEA) analysis in order to promote the incorporation of embodied energy impacts into building energy-efficiency regulations (BEERs). The proposed framework was developed based on an extensive review of 66 studies representing 243 case studies in over 15 countries. The framework consists of six distinctive dimensions, i.e., temporal, physical, methodological, hypothetical, spatial, and functional. These dimensions encapsulate 15 components collectively. The proposed framework possesses two key characteristics; first, its application facilitates defining the conditions of a system boundary within a transparent context. This consequently leads to increasing reliability of obtained LCEA results for decision-making purposes since any particular conditions (e.g., truncation or assumption) considered in establishing the boundaries of a system under study can be revealed. Second, the use of a framework can also provide a meaningful basis for cross comparing cases within a global context. This characteristic can further result in identifying best practices for the design of buildings with low life cycle energy use performance. Furthermore, this paper applies the proposed framework to analyse the LCEA performance of a case study in Adelaide, Australia. Thereafter, the framework is utilised to cross compare the achieved LCEA results with a case study retrieved from literature in order to demonstrate the framework’s capacity for cross comparison. The results indicate the capability of the framework for maintaining transparency in establishing a system boundary in an LCEA analysis, as well as a standardised basis for cross comparing cases. This study also offers recommendations for policy makers in the building sector to incorporate embodied energy into BEERs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 887 ◽  
pp. 335-343
Author(s):  
Nazanin Moazzen ◽  
Mustafa Erkan Karaguler ◽  
Touraj Ashrafian

Energy efficiency has become a crucial part of human life, which has an adverse impact on the social and economic development of any country. In Turkey, it is a critical issue especially in the construction sector due to increase in the dependency on the fuel demands. The energy consumption, which is used during the life cycle of a building, is a huge amount affected by the energy demand for material and building construction, HVAC and lighting systems, maintenance, equipment, and demolition. In general, the Life Cycle Energy (LCE) needs of the building can be summarised as the operational and embodied energy together with the energy use for demolition and recycling processes.Besides, schools alone are responsible for about 15% of the total energy consumption of the commercial building sector. To reduce the energy use and CO2 emission, the operational and embodied energy of the buildings must be minimised. Overall, it seems that choosing proper architectural measures for the envelope and using low emitting material can be a logical step for reducing operational and embodied energy consumptions.This paper is concentrated on the operating and embodied energy consumptions resulting from the application of different architectural measures through the building envelope. It proposes an educational building with low CO2 emission and proper energy performance in Turkey. To illustrate the method of the approach, this contribution illustrates a case study, which was performed on a representative schoold building in Istanbul, Turkey. Energy used for HVAC and lighting in the operating phase and the energy used for the manufacture of the materials are the most significant parts of embodied energy in the LCE analyses. This case study building’s primary energy consumption was calculated with the help of dynamic simulation tools, EnergyPlus and DesignBuilder. Then, different architectural energy efficiency measures were applied to the envelope of the case study building. Then, the influence of proposed actions on LCE consumption and Life Cycle CO2 (LCCO2) emissions were assessed according to the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method.


Buildings ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia MIRABELLA ◽  
Martin RÖCK ◽  
Marcella Ruschi Mendes SAADE ◽  
Carolin SPIRINCKX ◽  
Marc BOSMANS ◽  
...  

Globally, the building sector is responsible for more than 40% of energy use and it contributes approximately 30% of the global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. This high contribution stimulates research and policies to reduce the operational energy use and related GHG emissions of buildings. However, the environmental impacts of buildings can extend wide beyond the operational phase, and the portion of impacts related to the embodied energy of the building becomes relatively more important in low energy buildings. Therefore, the goal of the research is gaining insights into the environmental impacts of various building strategies for energy efficiency requirements compared to the life cycle environmental impacts of the whole building. The goal is to detect and investigate existing trade-offs in current approaches and solutions proposed by the research community. A literature review is driven by six fundamental and specific research questions (RQs), and performed based on two main tasks: (i) selection of literature studies, and (ii) critical analysis of the selected studies in line with the RQs. A final sample of 59 papers and 178 case studies has been collected, and key criteria are systematically analysed in a matrix. The study reveals that the high heterogeneity of the case studies makes it difficult to compare these in a straightforward way, but it allows to provide an overview of current methodological challenges and research gaps. Furthermore, the most complete studies provide valuable insights in the environmental benefits of the identified energy performance strategies over the building life cycle, but also shows the risk of burden shifting if only operational energy use is focused on, or when a limited number of environmental impact categories are assessed.


Energies ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (16) ◽  
pp. 3038 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Sánchez Ramos ◽  
MCarmen Guerrero Delgado ◽  
Servando Álvarez Domínguez ◽  
José Luis Molina Félix ◽  
Francisco José Sánchez de la Flor ◽  
...  

The reduction of energy consumption in the residential sector presents substantial potential through the implementation of energy efficiency improvement measures. Current trends involve the use of simulation tools which obtain the buildings’ energy performance to support the development of possible solutions to help reduce energy consumption. However, simulation tools demand considerable amounts of data regarding the buildings’ geometry, construction, and frequency of use. Additionally, the measured values tend to be different from the estimated values obtained with the use of energy simulation programs, an issue known as the ‘performance gap’. The proposed methodology provides a solution for both of the aforementioned problems, since the amount of data needed is considerably reduced and the results are calibrated using measured values. This new approach allows to find an optimal retrofitting project by life cycle energy assessment, in terms of cost and energy savings, for individual buildings as well as several blocks of buildings. Furthermore, the potential for implementation of the methodology is proven by obtaining a comprehensive energy rehabilitation plan for a residential building. The developed methodology provides highly accurate estimates of energy savings, directly linked to the buildings’ real energy needs, reducing the difference between the consumption measured and the predictions.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicolas Perez Fernandez

<p>This thesis studies the influence of construction materials on the life-cycle energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of medium sized low energy consumption commercial buildings. When describing buildings by materials, there is a tendency to label them according to the main structural material used. However, the vast majority of commercial buildings use a large number of materials. Hence it is not clear which materials or combinations of materials can achieve the best performance, in terms of lifecycle energy use and CO2 emissions. The buildings analysed here were based on an actual six-storey 4250m2 (gross floor area) building, with a mixed-mode ventilation system, currently under construction at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch. While the actual building is being constructed in concrete, the author has designed two further versions in which the structures and finishes are predominantly steel or timber. Despite having different structural materials, large quantities of finishes materials are common to all three buildings; large glazed curtain walls and sun louvers, stairs balustrade and most of the offices internal finishes. A fourth building was also produced in which all possible common finishes' of the timber building were replaced by timber components. This building is labelled as Timber-plus and was included to assess the difference of the three initial 'common finishes' buildings against a building that might be expected to have a low or even negative total embodied CO2 emission in structure and finishes. In order to highlight the influence of materials, each building was designed to have a similar indoor climate with roughly the same amount of operational energy for heating and cooling over its full life. Both energy use and CO2 emissions have been assessed over three main stages in the life (and potential environmental impact) of a building: initial production of the building materials (initial embodied energy and initial embodied CO2 emissions); operation of the building (mainly in terms of its energy use); and the refurbishment and maintenance of the building materials over the building's effective life (recurrent embodied energy and CO2 emissions). Calculation of embodied energy and embodied CO2 emissions are based on materials' estimates undertaken by a Quantity Surveyor. DesignBuilder software was used to estimate whole life-cycle energy used and CO2 emitted in the operation of the buildings over a period of 60 years. Two different methods for embodied energy and embodied CO2 calculation were applied to the four buildings. The first method was by multiplying the volume of each material in the schedule calculated by the Quantity Surveyor by the New Zealand specific coefficients of embodied energy and embodied CO2 produced by Andrew Alcorn (2003). The second method was analysing the same schedule of materials with GaBi professional LCA software. Materials' inventories in GaBi are average German industry data collected by PE Europe between 1996 and 2004 (Alcorn, 2003; Nebel & Love, 2008). The energy results of the thesis show that when using the Alcorn coefficients, the total embodied energy (initial plus recurrent embodied energy) averaged 23% and operating energy consumption averaged 77% of the total life-cycle energy consumption for the four buildings. Using the GaBi coefficients, total embodied energy averaged 19% and operating energy consumption averaged 81% of the total life-cycle energy consumption of the four buildings. Using the Alcorn coefficients, the difference between the highest (steel building) and lowest (timber-plus building) life-cycle energy consumption represents a 22% increment of the highest over the lowest. Using the GaBi coefficients, the difference between the lowest (timber-plus building) and the highest (timber building) life-cycle energy consumption represents a 15% increment of the highest over the lowest. The CO2 results shows that when using the Alcorn coefficients, the total embodied CO2 emissions averaged 7% and operating CO2 emissions averaged 93%. Using the GaBi coefficients, total embodied CO2 emissions averaged 16% and operating CO2 emissions averaged 84% of the life-cycle CO2 emissions of the four buildings. Using the Alcorn coefficients, the difference between the highest (steel building) and lowest (timber-plus building) life-cycle CO2 emissions represents a 27% increment of the highest over the lower. Using the GaBi coefficients, the difference between the highest (timber building) and the lowest (timber-plus building) lifecycle CO2 emissions represents a 9% increment of the highest over the lowest. While for the case of embodied energy the Alcorn results averaged 32% higher than the GaBi, in the case of embodied CO2 the Alcorn results averaged 62% lower than the GaBi. Major differences in the results produced when using the two different sets of embodied energy and CO2 coefficients are due mainly to their different approaches to the CO2 sequestration in timber materials. While the Alcorn coefficients account for the CO2 sequestration of timber materials, the GaBi coefficients do not. This is particularly noteworthy as the CO2 sequestration of timber has been neglected in previous research. It was established that embodied energy can significantly influence the life-cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions of contemporary low energy buildings. Using the Alcorn coefficients, the steel building embodied the equivalent of 27 years of operating energy consumption and 12 years of operating CO2 emissions. At the other end of the spectrum the timber-plus building embodied the equivalent of 11 years of operating energy consumption and has stored the equivalent of 3.6 years of operating CO2 emissions. Using the GaBi coefficients, the steel building embodied the equivalent of 19 years of operating energy consumption and 14 years of operating CO2 emissions, while the timber-plus building embodied the equivalent of 8 years of operating energy consumption and 8 years of operating CO2 emissions. These findings are of significance, for example, in the assessment and weighting of the embodied energy and embodied CO2 components of building sustainable rating tools.</p>


Author(s):  
Patxi Hernandez ◽  
Paul Kenny

Building energy performance regulations and standards around the world are evolving aiming to reduce the energy use in buildings. As we move towards zero energy buildings, the embodied energy of construction materials and energy systems becomes more important, as it represents a high percentage of the overall life cycle energy use of a building. However, this issue is still ignored by many regulations and certification methods, as happens with the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), which focuses on the energy used in operation. This paper analyses a typical house designed to comply with Irish building regulations, calculating its energy use for heating and how water with the Irish national calculation tool, which uses a methodology in line with the EPBD. A range of measures to reduce the energy performance in use of this typical house are proposed, calculating the reduced energy demand and moving towards a zero energy demand building. A life-cycle approach is added to the analysis, taking into account the differential embodied energy of the implemented measures in relation to the typical house base-case, annualizing the differential embodied energy and re-calculating the overall energy use. The paper discusses how a simplified approach for accounting embodied energy of materials could be useful in a goal to achieve the lowest life-cycle energy use in buildings, and concludes with a note on how accounting for embodied energy is a key element when moving towards zero energy buildings.


2013 ◽  
Vol 689 ◽  
pp. 54-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usep Surahman ◽  
Tetsu Kubota

This study aims to develop a simplified life cycle assessment model for residential buildings in Indonesia, which can be used under relatively poor data availability conditions. In order to obtain material inventory data and household energy consumption profiles for constructing the above model, a survey was conducted in Bandung in 2011. This paper analyzes life cycle energy and CO2 emissions employing an input-output analysis-based method within unplanned houses (n=250), which are classified into three categories, namely simple, medium and luxurious houses. The results showed that the average embodied energy of simple, medium and luxurious houses was 36.3, 130.0 and 367.7 GJ respectively. The cement consumed the largest energy and emitted the most CO2 emissions among all materials. The annual average operational energy of simple, medium and luxurious houses varied widely at 11.6, 17.4 and 32.1 GJ/year respectively. The energy consumption for cooking accounted for the largest percentage of operational energy. The profiles of life cycle CO2 emissions were similar with those of life cycle energy. The factors affecting embodied, operational and life cycle energy were also studied.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Nicolas Perez Fernandez

<p>This thesis studies the influence of construction materials on the life-cycle energy consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of medium sized low energy consumption commercial buildings. When describing buildings by materials, there is a tendency to label them according to the main structural material used. However, the vast majority of commercial buildings use a large number of materials. Hence it is not clear which materials or combinations of materials can achieve the best performance, in terms of lifecycle energy use and CO2 emissions. The buildings analysed here were based on an actual six-storey 4250m2 (gross floor area) building, with a mixed-mode ventilation system, currently under construction at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch. While the actual building is being constructed in concrete, the author has designed two further versions in which the structures and finishes are predominantly steel or timber. Despite having different structural materials, large quantities of finishes materials are common to all three buildings; large glazed curtain walls and sun louvers, stairs balustrade and most of the offices internal finishes. A fourth building was also produced in which all possible common finishes' of the timber building were replaced by timber components. This building is labelled as Timber-plus and was included to assess the difference of the three initial 'common finishes' buildings against a building that might be expected to have a low or even negative total embodied CO2 emission in structure and finishes. In order to highlight the influence of materials, each building was designed to have a similar indoor climate with roughly the same amount of operational energy for heating and cooling over its full life. Both energy use and CO2 emissions have been assessed over three main stages in the life (and potential environmental impact) of a building: initial production of the building materials (initial embodied energy and initial embodied CO2 emissions); operation of the building (mainly in terms of its energy use); and the refurbishment and maintenance of the building materials over the building's effective life (recurrent embodied energy and CO2 emissions). Calculation of embodied energy and embodied CO2 emissions are based on materials' estimates undertaken by a Quantity Surveyor. DesignBuilder software was used to estimate whole life-cycle energy used and CO2 emitted in the operation of the buildings over a period of 60 years. Two different methods for embodied energy and embodied CO2 calculation were applied to the four buildings. The first method was by multiplying the volume of each material in the schedule calculated by the Quantity Surveyor by the New Zealand specific coefficients of embodied energy and embodied CO2 produced by Andrew Alcorn (2003). The second method was analysing the same schedule of materials with GaBi professional LCA software. Materials' inventories in GaBi are average German industry data collected by PE Europe between 1996 and 2004 (Alcorn, 2003; Nebel & Love, 2008). The energy results of the thesis show that when using the Alcorn coefficients, the total embodied energy (initial plus recurrent embodied energy) averaged 23% and operating energy consumption averaged 77% of the total life-cycle energy consumption for the four buildings. Using the GaBi coefficients, total embodied energy averaged 19% and operating energy consumption averaged 81% of the total life-cycle energy consumption of the four buildings. Using the Alcorn coefficients, the difference between the highest (steel building) and lowest (timber-plus building) life-cycle energy consumption represents a 22% increment of the highest over the lowest. Using the GaBi coefficients, the difference between the lowest (timber-plus building) and the highest (timber building) life-cycle energy consumption represents a 15% increment of the highest over the lowest. The CO2 results shows that when using the Alcorn coefficients, the total embodied CO2 emissions averaged 7% and operating CO2 emissions averaged 93%. Using the GaBi coefficients, total embodied CO2 emissions averaged 16% and operating CO2 emissions averaged 84% of the life-cycle CO2 emissions of the four buildings. Using the Alcorn coefficients, the difference between the highest (steel building) and lowest (timber-plus building) life-cycle CO2 emissions represents a 27% increment of the highest over the lower. Using the GaBi coefficients, the difference between the highest (timber building) and the lowest (timber-plus building) lifecycle CO2 emissions represents a 9% increment of the highest over the lowest. While for the case of embodied energy the Alcorn results averaged 32% higher than the GaBi, in the case of embodied CO2 the Alcorn results averaged 62% lower than the GaBi. Major differences in the results produced when using the two different sets of embodied energy and CO2 coefficients are due mainly to their different approaches to the CO2 sequestration in timber materials. While the Alcorn coefficients account for the CO2 sequestration of timber materials, the GaBi coefficients do not. This is particularly noteworthy as the CO2 sequestration of timber has been neglected in previous research. It was established that embodied energy can significantly influence the life-cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions of contemporary low energy buildings. Using the Alcorn coefficients, the steel building embodied the equivalent of 27 years of operating energy consumption and 12 years of operating CO2 emissions. At the other end of the spectrum the timber-plus building embodied the equivalent of 11 years of operating energy consumption and has stored the equivalent of 3.6 years of operating CO2 emissions. Using the GaBi coefficients, the steel building embodied the equivalent of 19 years of operating energy consumption and 14 years of operating CO2 emissions, while the timber-plus building embodied the equivalent of 8 years of operating energy consumption and 8 years of operating CO2 emissions. These findings are of significance, for example, in the assessment and weighting of the embodied energy and embodied CO2 components of building sustainable rating tools.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-293
Author(s):  
Jan Kaselofsky ◽  
Ralf Schüle ◽  
Marika Rošā ◽  
Toms Prodaņuks ◽  
Anda Jekabsone ◽  
...  

AbstractNon-residential buildings in the European Union consume more than one third of the building sector’s total. Many non-residential buildings are owned by municipalities. This paper reports about an energy saving competition that was carried out in 91 municipal buildings in eight EU member states in 2019. For each public building an energy team was formed. The energy teams’ activities encompassed motivating changes in the energy use behaviour of employees and small investments. Two challenges added an element of gamification to the energy saving competition. To assess the success of the energy saving competition, an energy performance baseline was calculated using energy consumption data of each public building from previous years. Energy consumption in the competition year was monitored on a monthly base. After the competition the top energy savers from each country were determined by the percentage-based reduction of energy consumption compared to the baseline. On average, the buildings had an electricity and heat consumption in 2019 that was about 8 % and 7 %, respectively, lower than the baseline. As an additional data source for the evaluation, a survey among energy team members was conducted at the beginning and after the energy competition. Support from superiors, employee interest and motivation and behaviour change as assessed by energy team members show a positive, if weak or moderate, correlation with changes in electricity consumption, but not with changes in heat consumption.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (20) ◽  
pp. 7123
Author(s):  
Ricardo Abejón ◽  
Jara Laso ◽  
Marta Rodrigo ◽  
Israel Ruiz-Salmón ◽  
Mario Mañana ◽  
...  

Recent studies have identified that buildings all over the world are great contributors to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The relationship between the building industry and environmental pollution is continuously discussed. The building industry includes many phases: extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, construction, use, and demolition. Each phase consumes a large amount of energy, and subsequent emissions are released. The life cycle energy assessment (LCEA) is a simplified version of the life cycle assessment (LCA) that focuses only on the evaluation of energy inputs for different phases of the life cycle. Operational energy is the energy required for day-to-day operation processes of buildings, such as heating, cooling and ventilation systems, lighting, as well as appliances. This use phase accounts for the largest portion of energy consumption of the life cycle of conventional buildings. In addition, energy performance certification of buildings is an obligation under current European legislation, which promotes efficient energy use, so it is necessary to ensure that the energy performance of the building is upgraded to meet minimum requirements. For this purpose, this work proposes the consideration of the energy impacts and material resources used in the operation phase of a building to calculate the contribution of these energy impacts as new variables for the energy performance certification. The application of this new approach to the evaluation of university buildings has been selected as a case study. From a methodological point of view, the approach relied on the energy consumption records obtained from energy and materials audit exercises with the aid of LCA databases. Taking into practice the proposed methodology, the primary energy impact and the related emissions were assessed to simplify the decision-making process for the energy certification of buildings. From the results obtained, it was concluded that the consumption of water and other consumable items (paper) are important from energy and environmental perspectives.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document