Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings
Gian Andrea Blengini a,b,*, Tiziana Di Carlo c
a

DISPEA - Department of Production Systems and Business Economics, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy CNR-IGAG: Institute of Environmental Geology and Geo-Engineering, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy c DICAS - Department of Housing and City, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy
b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 2 June 2009 Received in revised form 11 December 2009 Accepted 26 December 2009 Keywords: LCA Sustainability Low energy building End-of-life Recycling potential

A detailed Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has been conducted on a low energy family house recently built in Northern Italy. The yearly net winter heat requirement is 10 kWh/m2, while the same unit with legal standard insulation would require 110 kWh/m2. As the building was claimed to be sustainable on the basis of its outstanding energy saving performances, an ex post LCA was set up to understand whether, and to what extent, the positive judgement could be conrmed in a life cycle perspective. The dramatic contribution of materials-related impacts emerged. The shell-embedded materials represented the highest relative contribution, but maintenance operations also played a major role. The contributions of plants, building process and transportation were minor. The important role of the recycling potential also emerged. Unlike standard buildings, where heating-related impacts overshadow the rest of the life cycle, there is no single dominating item or aspect. Rather, several of them play equally important roles. The study has conrmed that the initial goal of environmental sustainability was reached, but to a much lower extent than previously thought. In comparison to a standard house, while the winter heat requirement was reduced by a ratio of 10:1, the life cycle energy was only reduced by 2.1:1 and the carbon footprint by 2.2:1. 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Lowering energy intensity and environmental impacts of buildings is increasingly becoming a priority in energy and environmental policies in European countries. In Italy, such policies are being integrated in energy strategies and building regulations at different scales, from national to local, mainly through direct and indirect actions that are aimed at decreasing energy requirements during the use phase, with focus on winter heating. Although it is reasonable to tackle priorities for improving the environmental sustainability of buildings starting from the most energy intensive elements, it should be pointed out that not only is the use phase a source of environmental concern, but also the whole life cycle. The overall environmental impacts of buildings extend beyond the use phase, as they also encompass the embodied energy and environmental burdens related to resource extraction and manufacturing, construction activities,

* Corresponding author at: DISPEA - Department of Production Systems and Business Economics, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Turin, Italy. Tel.: +39 011 209 72 88; fax: +39 011 090 72 99. E-mail address: blengini@polito.it (G.A. Blengini). 0378-7788/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.009

as well as dismantling and construction waste disposal at endof-life (EOL). Moreover, life cycle impacts are highly inter-dependent, as one phase can inuence one or more of the others. For instance, the selection of building materials can reduce heat requirement, but might also increase embodied energy and transport-related impacts or affect the service duration of the whole building, and could even inuence the generation of recyclable (or disposable) demolition waste. Thus, interest in understanding energy use, consumption of natural resources and pollutant emissions in a life cycle perspective is growing, as acknowledged in a number of studies [113]. While in some of these it has been conrmed that operation energy is by far the most important contributor to life cycle impacts of conventional buildings [14,6,8], in some other cases [7,1012] it has been pointed out that, especially for new and low energy buildings, the relative role and the importance of life cycle phases are changing. According to Huberman and Pearlmutter [12], the embodied energy can be up to 60% of the life cycle energy. Therefore, the lower the operation energy, the more important it is to adopt a life cycle approach. Hence, an overall judgment on building sustainability should encompass all the life phases and should be based on an objective and internationally recognised

870

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880

methodology such as the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), according to the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards [14,15]. Ofcial statistics [16] support the need for energy saving policies that incorporate the life cycle approach. The use of buildings in Italy roughly corresponds to 31% of the nal energy use and greenhouse emissions throughout the country, but, when the manufacturing of construction materials (cement, bricks, glass, ceramics, etc.) is included, and when building activities are considered, the nal energy use and greenhouse emissions rise to 37 and 41%, respectively. On the basis of these preliminary considerations, the paper presents the results of a detailed LCA application to a low energy single family house that has recently been built (end of 2007) in Northern Italy. The building, located in the town of Morozzo, in Piedmont, was designed with an overall energy saving objective that is well beyond the most restrictive Italian and local regulations: one tenth of the maximum winter heat requirement allowed for a standard building. The house in Morozzo was selected by Regione Piemonte (the regional public administration) as an outstanding example of a very low energy building. A nancial contribution was awarded to cover the extra costs of the thermal insulation, nishes and plants in order to decrease the winter heat requirement from 110 kWh/ (m2 year) to around 10 kWh/m2. As a term of comparison, the existing building assets in the area under study show an average heat requirement of about 200 kWh/m2. As the building was claimed to be sustainable on the basis of its outstanding energy saving performance, an ex post LCA research programme was set up to understand whether, and to what extent, the benets that have been obtained after having drastically lowered the energy requirement for winter heating and domestic hot water (DHW) could be conrmed in a life cycle perspective. Low energy buildings are in fact typically characterised by higher embodied environmental burdens which might reduce, or even cancel, the achieved environmental benets. Bearing this in mind, a detailed LCA model was set up in compliance with international standards and guidelines [14,15,17,18]. The LCA model of the low energy house was compared with a second model relevant to the same house, but with a standard winter energy requirement and conventional plants. In order to better understand the role and the signicance of life cycle phases and subsystems and point out the key elements,

detailed and quantitative eld measured data were collected on building shell and plants materials, as well as on the building process. As the demolition and EOL of materials have rarely been addressed in previous LCA studies [2,6,7,19], in some cases being excluded [3,12] and often being analysed using literature data [7,8,11,2023], special attention was paid to model a realistic postmortem scenario, taking into account the knowledge gathered in previous studies [2]. Due to the fact that the design for dismantling concept had not been adopted during the design process, only for some of the building materials was it reasonably possible to assume a selective dismantling and subsequent recycling or reuse. Therefore, it was only possible to consider the recycling potentials for some materials, as discussed in other studies [2,19,21,23], while, for other materials, the only practicable option was landll or incineration. The methodology and the results here presented can also be useful to address simplications in future LCAs in the built environment. While it is certainly true that there is need for LCAbased tools in the building industry, the methodology is often regarded as too complicated, data and knowledge intensive, and time consuming. The role of simplication in LCAs of whole buildings or parts of it, like the one presented by Kellenberger and Althaus [24], is in fact a delicate issue that should be dealt with carefully, before LCA can become fully operational in the building sector. Detailed LCAs cannot be easily applied to routine design, but they can be useful to understand how and where simplications could help. On the basis of the analysis here presented, the life cycle approach should be adopted as a complement to existing energy saving and energy certication schemes, which are too often lacking in a comprehensive approach that would enhance their effectiveness and avoid problem shifting. 2. Description of the low energy house The low energy building under study is an individual family house, which is the main home of four occupants. It is located 80 km south of Turin and built on three levels, with a garage underneath two heated oors. The main geographical and climatic data, as well as some relevant building features are reported in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Main features and climatic data of the house in Morozzo.

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880

871

The house in Morozzo was designed by Studio Roatta Architetti ` Associati in Mondov (Italy), in compliance with sustainable and bioclimatic architecture principles, in order to obtain a very low energy building. The overall goal was obtaining a winter heat requirement ten times lower than the maximum allowed by the thermal regulations in force. Such a goal was reached through exploitation of passive solar contributions, optimisation of thermal insulation, minimisation of uncontrolled inward air ows and use of high efciency plants. The shape of the building, its orientation and the use of static solar barriers allowed the winter solar gain to be increased (59% contribution to the gross heat requirement) and the summer overheating to be kept under control. The structural system is a reinforced concrete frame partially combined with masonry block walls. The building is insulated with 15 cm cork slabs on the exterior facades, which leads to a thermal transmission coefcient U = 0.22 W/m2 K. The roof is insulated with 22 cm of wood wool (U = 0.21 W/m2 K) and the ground oor is insulated with 10 cm of polystyrene. The total glazed surface consists of 100 m2 of windows made of low-e coating triple glazing (overall U = 1.1 W/m2 K). Heat is produced by an air-to-water heat pump with a COP (coefcient of performance) of 2.54 and an average global seasonal yield hG,s = 2.62. The renewal of air is ensured by controlled mechanical ventilation with heat recovery having an efciency of 75% (Text = 1.7 8C Tint = 20 8C) and the air change rate is assumed to be 0.3 h1. Fresh air is collected through a 45 m long, 100 mm diameter, triple polyethylene pipe which is placed underneath the garden. With these parameters, and considering a thermostat set point of 20 8C, the useful heat requirement is 10.38 kWh/m2. A solar collector supplies about 95% of the yearly energy requirement for DHW production and 50% of the energy requirement for washing. 3. Methodology: LCA in the built environment Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is dened as an objective methodology to analyse and quantify the environmental consequences of products and services during their whole life cycle, from extraction of raw materials, through production, use phase and EOL, with a from-cradle-to-grave approach. LCA is internationally acknowledged as a science-based, fairly comprehensive and standardised environmental assessment methodology and it is used in several sectors, including the building industry, with a wide range of applications. A fairly comprehensive review of existing LCA applications in the built environment can be found in Sartori and Hestnes [1] and in Ortiz et al. [13]. Although the general LCA methodology is well dened, its application in the building industry still suffers from a lack of sector-specic standardisation. Some authors [1,3,13] in fact claim
Table 1 Life cycle phases, subsystems and data sources. Life cycle phase Pre-use and maintenance Subsystem Shell and plants material Transportation Building process Maintenance

that most existing LCAs are not comparable to a great extent, as they are based upon different approaches and assumptions. For this reason, the methodological choices and the results should be presented in a transparent way. This said, the research presented in this paper is based on the application of LCA according to ISO standards [14,15] and following the assumptions and conventions briey recalled in the following paragraphs. 3.1. System boundaries The CEN/TC 350 Sustainability of Construction works standard (under development) recommends consideration of four buildings life cycle stages: product stage (raw materials supply, transport and manufacturing), construction stage (transport and constructioninstallation on-site processes), use stage (maintenance, repair and replacement, refurbishment, operational energy use: heating, cooling, ventilation, hot water and lighting and operational water use) and end-of-life stage (deconstruction, transport, recycling/re-use and disposal). Bearing these recommendations in mind, the system under study was split into the phases and subsystems shown in Table 1. Although the relative contribution of all the stages and subsystems is visible in the owchart available for downloading as an ecomponent, it was considered more meaningful to the research to clearly separate the contribution of materials from energy use during the operational phase. 3.2. Functional unit In LCAs of whole buildings, the functional unit should be dened so that the different buildings being compared provide the same services, for a similar duration [2,6,13,19]. Bearing that in mind, the function of the system under study can be dened by its service time and by a reference area. Consequently, the functional unit is 1 m2/year. According to ISO 14040, the functional unit is a measure of the function of the studied system. The main function of the house is certainly supplying a human habitation service, which can be directly correlated to the size of the living area (heated). However, the garage is also supplying a service, though of lower quality, and this should also be accounted for when calculating the reference area, which is a measure of the overall service provided. For commercial purposes in Italy, the market value of a house is calculated based on the sum of the living area plus 1/3 of nonheated areas, reecting the quality of the services provided, and which approach was adopted in the present research (Fig. 1). This means that the model was calculated for the whole building, over 70 years expected occupancy, and the obtained results were divided by 70 and by 250.

Source of site-specic data Quantities estimated from building drawings and eld measured data Average distances from personal communication with designer and constructor Field measured data, personal communication with designer and constructor, literature [4,7,11,22,24] Literature [3,7,10,11,22,24,25] and personal communication with designer and constructor Calculated with the software application Edilclima EC501 [26] Statistical data [16,27,28]

Use

Energy use for heating, ventilating and DHW Energy use for cooking, washing, lighting and use of appliances Dismantling, demolition, recycling/reuse/landll

End-of-life

Literature data [2,2931] and unpublished data from Politecnico di Torino on end-of-life of building materials

872

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880

However, some readers might think that only the heated area should be considered as a measure of the service provided. They can therefore adapt the value of indicators presented in this paper multiplying by 250 m2 and dividing by 192 m2. The change of reference area will not affect the comparison between the low energy and the standard houses. 3.3. Data collection and modelling As design drawings and bill of quantities were freely available and it was possible to enter the worksite at various stages of the building process, most of the data are site measurements. However, a cradle-to-grave LCA cannot be made only on the basis of directly collected data and thus site-specic data had to be integrated with literature data, as reported in Table 1. The inventory datasets for material fabrication, energy production chains and transport systems were mostly extracted from the Ecoinvent 2 database [32], while the LCI modelling was performed using the SimaPro 7 software application [33]. 3.4. End-of-life of building materials (recycling potential) The EOL of products is an essential part of every LCA study. However, it should be pointed out that this is probably the most difcult part of an LCA, as it is necessary to forecast, several years (or decades) in advance, what a credible (or reasonable) sequence of activities would be for dismantling and recycling (or disposing) of construction and demolition waste (C&DW). While it is true that there is limited quantitative information on the actual demolition process [22], there are a few studies [2,21,23] that contain some quantitative and methodological information on the role of EOL in building sustainability. Recycling can avoid landlling and partially displace the environmental impacts of manufacturing, as recycled products can substitute virgin materials, but, on the other hand, it is also responsible for impacts related to re-processing and transportation. In such a context, it is possible that more energy is spent and more impacts are caused through recycling than energy and impacts saved as a consequence of avoided primary production. LCA models, like the one here presented, should therefore be extended over the whole recycling chain and should consider credible and reasonable sorting yields, transportation distances, re-processing efciencies and take into account the quality of the recycled products, in comparison to the correspondent virgin products. The present research has adopted the avoided products approach, according to which the EOL chain is modelled downstream, including all the activities and processes (and their related impacts) from C&DW collection to substitution of virgin products. The environmental burdens corresponding to manufacturing of the substituted product are subtracted from the system. The balance between environmental impacts and gains in the chain (net gain) might therefore be negative, in case the avoided impacts (benets) are higher than the induced impacts, or viceversa. The ratio between the net environmental gains of the demolition-recycling chain and the burdens corresponding to the materials embedded in the building shell is called the recycling potential [2]. The recycling potential is thus a measure of the environmental impact reduction that can be achieved through appropriate EOL management. The avoided product approach can apply to both closed loop and open loop recycling, according to ISO standards [14,15]. On this point, it is worth remarking that the avoided product convention is not always adopted. For instance, Scheuer et al. [22] do not consider environmental credits of recycling.

In the opinion of the authors, if based on realistic processes and efciencies, the avoided product method is the most transparent and it helps understanding what the benets and drawbacks of recycling are. In order to express an overall judgement on sustainability, it is not in fact sufcient to state that a material is recyclable [23], or that recyclable materials were used. In fact, one also has to consider the forms for recycling, as well as how to provide for disassembly, before the expression environmentally sustainable can be used. For these reasons, in this work, the recycling potential was assessed and presented, but always kept separate, with an option for exclusion, in order to enhance comparability with other studies. 3.5. Data uncertainty The existence of uncertainties in input data and modelling is often mentioned as a crucial drawback to a clear interpretation of LCA results [34]. For this reason, although its use is not common practise, uncertainty analysis is gaining importance in LCAs. In order to understand the reliability of LCAs in the building sector more clearly, the LCA models presented in this paper were elaborated using data uncertainty estimations and calculating the results not only through a deterministic approach, but also in terms of probability distribution using the Monte Carlo method. As far as the data retrieved from Ecoinvent 2 are concerned, these are also available as probability distributions, mostly lognormal, as described in Frischknecht and Jungbluth [35]. The denition of the uncertainty of site-specic data was much more complicated, as they were mostly available as single measurements or estimates. The evaluation of the input data uncertainty was therefore carried out according to the pedigree matrix for uncertainty estimation described in Frischknecht and Jungbluth [35], considering the data quality management approach presented in Junnila [20] and according to an overall data quality judgement expressed by the participants in the research. The input datasets presented in the next section have therefore been supplied with a deterministic value, as well as in terms of CV (coefcient of variation = standard deviation/mean) and normal distribution around the deterministic value. The Monte Carlo simulation was run with 10,000 cycles. 3.6. Selection of environmental indicators LCI results are commonly regarded as the most objective part of an LCA. However, as they emerge as a long list of natural resource use and emissions in air, water and soil, they must be converted into understandable and meaningful indicators, before it is possible to make any practical use of them. Conversely, the choice of appropriate indicators and commonly accepted methodologies to analyse inventory results is always a subjective step. This was also the case in the present research, where the participants (designers, public administrators, researchers) agreed to base the overall judgement on sound, objective and internationally recognised LCA indicators. At the same time, the participants also recognised that there is need for comprehensive and understandable indicators to be used in LCAs of the built environment. Thus, life cycle indicators were chosen to be representative of broadly recognised areas of environmental concern, as well as being based on international conventions, agreements, and guidelines. This approach is consistent with the International Standards Organizations (ISO) recommendations for LCIA methods, which state that the impact categories, category indicators and characterization models should be internationally accepted,

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880

873

i.e. based on an international agreement or approved by a competent international body [14]. A rst group of four energy and environmental indicators was adopted: - Gross energy requirement (GER), as an indicator of the life cycle total primary energy use [36]; - Non-renewable energy (NRE), as the non-renewable part of GER; - Global warming potential (GWPf), as an indicator of greenhouse emissions with a time horizon of 100 years, excluding the contribution of biogenic carbon dioxide [37]; - Global warming potential (GWPb), as an indicator of greenhouse emissions, including the contribution of biogenic carbon dioxide; Although GER, NRE, and GWP are sometimes regarded as duplications of each other [24], the choice of considering all of them was made deliberately. GER and NRE are remarkably different in low energy houses like the one here presented, due to the extensive use of wood. In the authors opinion, nonrenewable and renewable energies are both important for mankind, while in some cases it seems that some people are not concerned about using too much renewable energy, as it is renewable. Low energy buildings should use low quantities of energy, regardless of their source, and renewable energies like biomass could reasonably be saved for other purposes. Although global warming is closely correlated to energy use, GWP has also been considered in order to understand whether the decarbonation that occurs during clinker burning can inuence the results in a concrete-framed building, like the one presented here. Moreover, as the biogenic carbon cycle in wooden products is often not neutral, as remarked in Peuportier [19], the inuence of biogenic carbon dioxide emissions was also investigated. Wooden products in LCA databases are usually assigned a CO2 credit, which includes the carbon stored in the biomass and the balance between emissions and uptake in the wood production chain. However, when assigning an ex ante credit to wood, one has to make sure that the full life cycle of the biomass is considered, from forestry to EOL (either incineration, landll or re-use), otherwise the potential carbon sequestration could be overestimated. For this reason, a precautionary criterion was adopted to calculate the GWPb assigning ex post the CO2 credit to re-used wood, i.e. wood that permanently stores carbon. In order to extend the analysis to a wider area of environmental concern, four more indicators were selected: ozone depletion potential (OD), acidication potential (AP), eutrophication potential (EP) and photochemical ozone creation potential (POCP) [38]. The choice of the aforementioned eight indicators corresponds, in the ISO 14040 standard, to the selection of impact categories. They are usually classied as mid-point (or problem oriented) indicators and they are widely and internationally recognised as being fairly objective indicators by LCA practitioners, as they are based on environmental science knowledge on the effects of different substances in the ecosystem. According to the ISO 14040 procedure, the classication step assigns items from the ecobalance inventory (LCI) to one or more mid-point categories. The characterization step then quanties the contribution of the item to the mid-point category value, for example the contribution of NOx emissions to eutrophication. Although ISO 14040 [14] recommends that LCAs end with a set of mid-point environmental indicators, it should be acknowledged that this makes the decision process more complicated, as some of these indicators might not be concordant in identifying the best solution. Policymakers and public administrators often express their need for practical tools that might simplify the decision process [39], thus several methodologies have been proposed to

convert LCI results into a narrower set of indicators or possibly into a single score index. Such methods are often based on the so-called damage oriented (end-point) approach, and are aimed at evaluating the environmental consequences with reference to wider areas of concern, such as human health, ecosystem quality, intergenerational equity, etc. As they involve both physical and social aspects, with a weaker scientic background, and they introduce subjective value choices and uncertainty, they have collected less international consensus. Even though single score indexes have been severely criticised [40] and there are divergent opinions on weighting methodologies and factors [11,12,22,30,3941], in order to understand the suitability of existing methodologies more clearly, and to give a contribution to the ongoing debate, three single score indexes have been selected: Eco-Indicator 99 (EI99H/A), Ecological Footprint (EF) and Environmental Priority Strategy (EPS2000) [42]. 4. Description of the LCA model The main inventory data relevant to the low energy house (LEH) in Morozzo are described in the following paragraphs. A detailed owchart of the LCA model is available for downloading as an ecomponent. 4.1. Pre-use and maintenance Pre-use and maintenance include everything that concerns the production of materials and plants, their transportation, the building process and the maintenance of the building. Before the data collection and modelling could start, the materials were grouped into 11 shell components and 4 plants, as reported in Table 2. The inventory dataset in Table 3 summarises the elaboration of the eld measured data, integrated with the data sources reported in Table 1. The type of transportation systems and
Table 2 Components of the building shell and plants. Shell components Basement Garage Main materials (life span: 70 years) Cement, concrete, steel bars, concrete not reinforced, polyethylene Concrete, steel bars, concrete not reinforced, cement, portland cement, bricks, mortar, gravel, acrylic binder Concrete and steel bars, steel Bricks, mortar, concrete, steel bars Gypsum board, steel Untreated wood, wooden roof beams, particle board, paper, aluminium Chromium steel, untreated wood Aluminium, HDPE, particle board, glass, steel Plaster, varnish, ceramic tiles Concrete not reinforced, ceramic tiles, stoneware, untreated wood Cork slab (external walls), polystyrene (ooring), wood wool (roof and interior walls) Main materials (life span: 35 years) HDPE (drainage piping), HDPE and aluminium (potable water pipes), chromium steel, sanitary ceramics, steel, glass, brass and PVC (bathroom accessories), aluminium, mineral wool, copper, glass (solar panels), PVC coated Steel, polyethylene, aluzink (heating pump) Copper, PVC, HDPE HDPE, aluzink

Floors and stairs Vertical structural elements Interior walls Roof Terrace Windows and doors Surface lining Flooring Insulation

Plants Water plant

HVAC (heating, ventilating air conditioning) Lighting Ventilating

874

Table 3 Inventory datasets for pre-use and maintenance. Shell materials Concrete Bricks Concrete not reinforced Plaster Steel bars Untreated wood Cork slab Ceramic tiles Glass Wooden roof beams Wood wool Mortar Particle board Stoneware Polystyrene Stoneware Aluminium Gravel Chromium steel Cement Gypsum Varnish Portland cement Paper PET Steel HDPE Acrylic binder Plants materials Sanitary ceramics Steel HDPE Aluzink Chromium steel Glass Aluminium Polyethylene Copper Mineral wool PVC Brass PVC coated Q.ty [ton] (CV = 10%) 493 84.6 84.2 24.2 6.14 4.8 4.7 5 4.5 4.5 3.96 3.57 2.74 0.97 0.83 0.76 0.74 0.68 0.6 0.53 0.45 0.3 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.1 0.07 0.04 Q.ty [ton] (CV = 20%) 351 297 288.4 185 134 115.6 89.9 56.2 53.3 48.4 24.7 18.6 1.4 Database entry Concrete, normal, at plant Brick, at plant Cement, gravel, water Cement, gravel, water, lime mortar, at plant Reinforcing steel, at plant Sawn timber, hardwood, planet, kiln dried, u = 10% at plant Cork slab, at plant Ceramic tiles, at regional storage Flat glass, coated, at plant Sawn timber, hardwood, planet, air/kiln dried, u = 10% at plant Wood wool, u = 10% at plant Cement, gravel, water Particle board, indoor use at plant Natural stone plate, polished, at regional storage Polystyrene foamslab at plant Natural stone plate, polished, at regional storage Aluminium, primary at plant Gravel, crushed, at mine Steel, converter, chromium steel 18/8 at plant Cement, water Stucco at plant Acrylic varnish, 87.5% in H2O, at plant Portland cement strength class Z 42.4, at plant Kraft paper, unbleached at plant Polyethylene terephthalate, granulate, at plant Steel, converter, low-alloyed, at plant Polyethylene, HDPE granulate at plant Acrylic binder, 34% in H2O, at plant Database entry Sanitary ceramics, at regional storage Steel low-alloyed, at plant Polyethylene HDPE granulate, at plant Aluminium, primary at plant, zinc primary at regional storage Steel, converter, chromium steel 18/8 at plant Flat glass, coated, at plant Aluminium, primary at plant Polyethylene terephthalate, granulate, at plant Copper, at regional storage Rock wool, at plant Polyvinylchloride, emulsion polymerised, at plant Brass, at plant Polyvinylchloride, at regional storage Distance [km] (CV = 30%) 8 20 8 30 20 374 200/2000 350 1000 374 450 30 374 50 100 100 100 8 50 30 80 50 30 30 100 50 100 100 Distance [km] (CV = 30%) 350 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 100 Transport system Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Van <3.5 t Lorry 1632 Van <3.5 t Van <3.5 t Van <3.5 t Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Lorry 1632 Van <3.5 t Van <3.5 t Van <3.5 t Lorry 1632 Van <3.5 t Van <3.5 t Van <3.5 t Van <3.5 t Van <3.5 t t t t t t t/van <3.5 t t/freight ship t t t/van <3.5 t t t/van <3.5 t Waste factor [%] (CV = 20%) 4 4 4 10 5 4 5 5 5 4 3 6 4 5 4 5 5 10 5 3 5 10 4 5 7 Waste factor [%] (CV = 20%) 5 10 5 3 5 3 7 8 8 Maintenance Q.ty [ton] (CV = 30%) 15.4 24.2 2.5 4.7 5 4.3 3.96 2.54 0.97 0.83 0.76 0.2 0.45 1.27 0.16 0.062 0.07 Maintenance Q.ty [ton] (CV = 30%) 351 297 288.4 185 134 115.6 89.9 56.2 53.3 48.4 24.7 18.6 1.4

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880

t t t

Transport system Van Van Van Van Van Van Van Van Van Van Van Van Van <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 <3.5 t t t t t t t t t t t t t

CV = coefcient of variation (standard deviation/mean).

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880

875

Fig. 2. Materials embodied in the LEH (cutting waste and replacement excluded).

the distances from factories or distribution centres to the construction site were communicated by either the contractor or the designer. Data referring to the energy consumption and machinery use during the building process were communicated by the constructor: 2556 MJ of electricity and 1040 m3 of soil excavation. Construction waste factors, i.e. cutting waste generated during the building process, and replacement factors for repair/ maintenance of the shell, nishes and plants were estimated from the literature reported in Table 1, taking into account the designers and constructors experience. For what it concerns the service duration of building materials, it must be noticed that, as reported by Kellenberger and Althaus [24], little reliable data on the life span of building components is presently available. Assumptions based on literature were necessary. Fig. 2 shows an overview of grouped embodied materials. 4.2. Use phase The energy consumption during the operational phase was separated into uses that depend on the house size (heating and ventilating) and the uses that depend on the number of occupants (DHW, cooking, lighting, appliance use). The winter heat requirement was calculated by the designers according to the architectural and thermo-physical features, as well as the local climate conditions. For that purpose, designers selected the software application Edilclima EC501 [26], as they consider it a exible and reliable tool, which is in compliance with legislative requirements (Decree 192/2005 subsequently amended by legislative decree 311/2006) and the UNI EN 832 standard [43]. The energy requirement for DHW was calculated considering 4 occupants with a daily demand of 50 l. Energy used for cooking, washing and lighting was retrieved from the ofcial statistics indicated in Table 1.
Table 5 End-of-life of shell and plants materials. Material Aluminium Glass Steel, copper, aluzink Steel rebars Wooden roof beams Untreated wood Other wooden materials Concrete, bricks, ceramics, plaster, mortar, stoneware Others (cork, plastic, gypsum, mineral wool)

Table 4 summarises energy consumption for all the activities in the operational phase. Electricity collected from the grid is the only energy source, therefore the eco-prole is that relevant to the Italian mix according to the Ecoinvent database. 4.3. End-of-life Three distinct steps were included in the LCA model of EOL: 1. Selective dismantling of re-usable/recyclable materials and structures (windows, steel, aluminium, roof); 2. Controlled demolition of the structural system by hydraulic hammers and shears; 3. Operations for C&DW treatment and recycling, re-use or landll. Table 5 summarises the most important data describing the EOL model, with emphasis on sorting efciencies and destination. All the energy consumption and environmental impacts due to transportation, demolition and recycling operations were considered in the inventory analysis, on the basis of the results of a previous study [2]. Inventory data relevant to recycling of aluminium, steel, glass and copper were retrieved from the Ecoinvent database, which contains data on both production from scraps (recycling) and from virgin raw materials (avoided products).
Table 4 Electricity collected from the grid during the use phase. Energy consumption (CV) Heating and ventilating DHW Cooking Washing, lighting and use of appliances 4.7 (10%) 22.8 (25%) 542.5 (25%) 1646 (25%) kWh/(m2 year) kWh/year kWh/year kWh/year

CV = coefcient of variation (standard deviation/mean).

Selective dismantling 90% 90% 90% 90% 50% recycling recycling recycling reuse reuse

Controlled demolition 70% 10% 50% 90%

Rubble processing 10% recycling 10% recycling (aggregate) 10% recycling 30% recycling 10% incineration 100% recycling (aggregate) 100% landll

recycling incineration incineration incineration

876

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880 Table 6 Inventory of the standard house. Main changes in respect to the low energy house Shell components Walls Roof Windows Quantity of bricks increased (11 t added) OSB panel excluded Triple glass windows substituted with double glass Total glazed surface decreased (100 ! 35 m2) Cork slab (walls) substituted with polystyrene of decreased thickness (15 ! 4 cm) Polystyrene (oor) thickness reduced (10 ! 3 cm) Wood wool (roof) substituted with polystyrene of decreased thickness (22 ! 5 cm) Heat pump substituted with natural gas boiler (condensing) Distribution and radiating pipelines increased by a factor 4 Excluded Solar panels excluded

The lithoid fraction, i.e. concrete, mortar, bricks, ceramics, etc., was assumed to undergo a recycling process for the production of secondary aggregates. This can be considered a form of open loop recycling, as concrete and other building materials are downgraded into recycled aggregates, therefore avoiding the production of natural sand and gravel. For clarity, it should be mentioned that the C&DW generated from the building process and during maintenance operations was considered to undergo a simplied EOL model, which involved metal and glass separation and recycling, wood incineration and mixed rubble recycling. EOL of cutting waste and maintenance materials were included in the building process and maintenance subsystems, respectively, in order to keep them separated from the EOL of the house itself, as they occur at different stages. 4.4. Inventory of the standard house The standard house (SH) mirrors the original in size features, geographical/climatic conditions and service duration of the house in Morozzo (Fig. 1). The energy consumption for heating was recalculated in compliance with the same legislative requirements and the building shell and plants were consequently adapted. The main differences between the SH and the LEH are those relevant to the thickness and type of insulation, the typology and size of the glazed surface, and the type and size of the plants, as summarised in Table 6. In particular, the window surface was decreased and, consequently, the external walls surface increased. The heat pump was substituted with a natural gas boiler and the solar collector excluded. The inventory step was re-elaborated, taking into account the new building features. Heating, DHW and cooking were considered to be powered by natural gas, with no solar contribution (inventory data of the natural gas supply chain from Ecoinvent). The energy requirement for lighting and use of appliances remained unchanged. Due to the exclusion of the solar panel, the energy requirement for DHW and washing was increased (Table 6). The EOL phase remained the same as the one already described for the LEH, although it was adapted according to the new quantities. Here it should be pointed out that one advantage of the SH, in comparison to the LEH, was the possibility of using gas cooking equipment. Electric cooking equipment had to be selected for the LEH as the use of a standard natural gas device was not compatible with legislative prescriptions due to the insufcient aeration of the kitchen. This penalises the LEH, as the from-cradle-to-gate natural gas chain is more efcient than the electric chain. 5. Results and discussion As described in the methodological section, the LCIA results are presented at two levels:  Mid-point indicators: GER, NRE, GWPf, GWPb, OD, AP, EP, POCP;  Single score end-point indicators: EI99H/A, EF, EPS2000.
Table 7 Life cycle mid-point indicators of the low energy house. Indicators GER NRE GWPf GWPb OD AP EP POCP Unit MJ MJ kg CO2 equiv. kg CO2 equiv. mg CFC11 equiv. mol H+ g O2 equiv. g C2H4 equiv. Pre-use and maintenance (CV) 197 (23%) 132 (29%) 10.8 (20%) 10.8 (20%) 0.77 (28%) 1.20 (24%) 226 (34%) 0.93 (29%)

Insulation

Plants Heating plant

Ventilating plant Water plant Use phase Heating Sanitary water Washing Cooking

Heat requirement increased from 10.38 to 109.5 kWh/(m2 year) (electricity ! natural gas) End-use energy from 22.8 to 2960 kWh/year (electricity ! natural gas) End-use energy from 150 to 300 kWh/year End-use energy from 542.5 to 774.6 kWh/year (electricity ! natural gas)

5.1. Lifecycle indicators of the low energy house Table 7 summarises the mid-point environmental indicators relevant to the life cycle of the LEH. Pre-use and maintenance impacts, i.e. materials-related impacts, are always higher that those relevant to the use phase, except ozone depletion. Moreover, EOL always shows a net environmental gain. According to the Monte Carlo simulation, the coefcient of variation, which shows the range in which 68% of the results fall, is between 6 and 42% around the mean value. As far as the total life cycle indicators are concerned, global warming and acidication show less disperse results, followed by energy indicators, while stratospheric ozone, eutrophication and photochemical smog have a higher level of uncertainty. 5.2. Contribution analysis and recycling potential A contribution analysis was conducted to examine the role of the subsystems highlighted in Table 1, both in terms of mid-point and end-point indicators. As reported in Fig. 3, plants, transportation and the building process always play a minor role. The contribution of materials in the shell plus materials used for maintenance is usually above 50%. The use phase is dominated by other uses, which have a greater impact than heating, while cooking is remarkably lower, though not negligible, and DHW use has virtually no relative impact.

Use (CV) 134 (28%) 123 (29%) 7.9 (23%) 7.9 (23%) 0.92 (34%) 1.19 (24%) 112 (28%) 0.21 (29%)

End-of-life (CV) 40 (31%) 21 (37%) 1.3 (9%) 2.7 (6%) 0.04 (40%) 0.21 (10%) 20 (42%) 0.03 (34%)

Life cycle (CV) 291 (18%) 235 (20%) 17.4 (17%) 16 (18%) 1.64 (26%) 2.18 (18%) 319 (25%) 1.12 (24%)

CV = coefcient of variation (standard deviation/mean).

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880

877

Fig. 3. Contribution analysis of the life cycle subsystems.

What clearly emerged is that, conversely to standard buildings and unlike the ndings of other studies [14,6,8,19,20,22], there is no single subsystem which overshadows the others, but the life cycle impacts are caused by the mutual contribution of several equally (or almost equally) important elements. Designers and public administrators participating in the study were surprised by the minor contribution of transportation, as it was feared that the triple glazed windows imported from Germany and the cork slab transported over long distances by truck and by ship might compromise the environmental performances of the LEH. This result conrms the ndings of Peuportier [19], who estimated the contribution of transportation between 1.5 and 2.4% of CO2 emissions. Fig. 3 shows the important contribution of the building EOL, which corresponds to a reduction in life cycle impacts of 217%, depending on the indicator. In terms of recycling potential, i.e. comparing the net environmental saving with the environmental burdens of the shell and plants materials, the LEH showed a potential impact reduction of 32% in terms of GER, 17% in terms of GWPf and 24% in terms of Eco-Indicator 99.

Therefore, an eco-efcient EOL management, as a consequence of the correct choice of building materials and the proper recycling processes, could be useful to lower life cycle impacts. This is an interesting nding that complements previous studies [12,21] and might inuence the design of future low energy buildings: the more energy needed during the use phase decreases, the more important it is to pay attention to both energy for material production and to the aspects of the recycling potential. It is also important to notice that the four chosen energy and climate change indicators do not duplicate each other. In particular, the contribution of carbon sequestered in the re-used wood remarkably increases the recycling potential and lowers the life cycle greenhouse emissions. There is, however, a need for further research in this context. With reference to Fig. 3, it is interesting to compare analogies and dissimilarities among the results expressed in terms of single score indicators and mid-point indicators. For instance, EPS2000 is the only indicator that assigns to the plants a remarkable role; EcoIndicator 99 and GER show virtually the same results; OD is the

Fig. 4. Contribution analysis of the embodied energy (initial + maintenance).

878

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880

Fig. 5. Comparison between LEH and SH (energy and climate change).

only indicator for which the use phase shows a contribution above 50%. 5.3. Contribution analysis: shell and plant materials Fig. 4 shows the embodied energy of shell and plant materials. Based on the dataset reported in Table 3, materials with similar physical characteristics are grouped together, with exclusion of those representing less than 1% of the GER. The results are shown as the sum of initial non-renewable energy (including cutting waste), plus initial renewable energy, plus maintenance (nonrenewable plus renewable). The most important contributors to the GER of the pre-use phase are wooden items (sawn timber, particle board, wood wool, cork slab). However, it should be remarked that 76% is renewable energy. As far as GER is concerned, concrete comes after wooden materials, but it is the rst contributor to NRE, followed by bricks, steel reinforcing bars and aluminium. This conrms that even in recently built low energy buildings, traditional materials like concrete and steel still play an important role in terms of embodied energy, as reported in other studies [2,44]. 5.4. Scenario analysis: comparison between LEH and SH The comparison between the life cycle impacts of the low energy house and the standard house is probably the most meaningful part of the research and it is helpful to highlight the role and signicance of the different subsystems in a life cycle perspective. Fig. 5 shows energy and climate change indicators, since they were considered the most meaningful for the objectives of the

research, as well as the most reliable. The error bars show the range corresponding to 68% of the results obtained after the Monte Carlo simulation. The uncertainty assessment was run separately for each of the selected subsystems, however it should be said that, despite the effects of uncertainty on the absolute accuracy of an LCA, comparative LCAs are relatively more accurate, as uncertainty is usually highly correlated between scenarios. Fig. 6 shows the single score indicators obtained after the application of the three selected weighting methodologies. In this case, the Monte Carlo simulation was not performed, as modelling life cycle impacts with an end-point approach involves datasets and models that are affected by a much higher uncertainty. This would require a deeper analysis which is beyond the scope of this research. As can be observed, there is an increase in the pre-use and maintenance impacts from the SH to the LEH, though it is relatively small. A much more evident difference between SH and LEH is that relevant to the use phase, especially due to heating. As a consequence, while the use phase in the SH is responsible for more than 80% of the life cycle energy use, the contribution of the use phase in the LEH is below 50%. It is also clear that, while the use phase in the SH is dominated by heating, most of the energy consumption in the LEH is related to other uses. Similar results were also obtained for climate change and the three single score indicators. These ndings clearly highlight the weight and signicance of the pre-use and use phases in low energy buildings, pointing out that, when dealing with energy saving and sustainability issues, the contribution of materials-related energy and environmental burdens cannot be neglected.

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880 Table 8 Comparison between life cycle indicators (SH:LEH ratio). Use (heat) GER NRE GWPf GWPb EI99H/A EF EPS2000 9.5:1 10.4:1 9.4:1 9.4:1 10.0:1 7.9:1 9.1:1 Use (total) 3.8:1 4.1:1 3.8:1 3.8:1 4.0:1 3.2:1 3.6:1

879

Life cycle 2.1:1 2.5:1 2.2:1 2.3:1 2.0:1 1.7:1 1.6:1

the above ratio changes to 3.8:1. Furthermore, when considering the full life cycle, the ratio becomes 2.1:1 in terms of GER, 2.2:1 in terms of GWPf and 2:1 in terms of Eco-Indicator 99. The outstanding energy saving and environmental performances of the studied LEH were thus conrmed after the life cycle analysis, but to a much lower extent. This still remains a very good result, but sensibly reduced in comparison to what was expected by designers and public administrators. 6. Conclusions The results of a detailed LCA applied to the house in Morozzo in Northern Italy have highlighted that, when addressing energy saving and sustainability performances of low energy buildings, the role and signicance of all life cycle phases and subsystems should be carefully re-considered. On the basis of an analysis extended over a 70 years lifetime, the dramatic contribution of materials-related impacts has emerged. Shell materials have the highest relative contribution, but maintenance operations also play a major role, although it should be noticed that there is still need for more reliable data on the actual service duration of several materials. The contribution of plants, building process and transportation is minor, though not always negligible. Unlike standard buildings, where heating and ventilating overshadow both the rest of the operational energy and the whole life cycle, in the LEH the use phase is dominated by other uses, i.e. lighting, electric appliances, cooking and DHW. Here it must be said that heat energy requirement was calculated with a simulation tool and could not fully take into account the high uncertainty related to peoples living habits. Therefore it would be interesting after a few years to compare simulated data with eld measurements. The role of recycling potential, as an effective tool to decrease life cycle impacts, though postponed in the future, has also been quantied. Hence, as far as the changing role of life cycle phases and subsystems in low energy buildings is concerned, it can be stated that there is not one single item or aspect that dominates the life cycle impacts, but several of them are equally important in determining the overall sustainability. As energy saving is pushed towards the upper limit, the use of a single electric appliance, whose inuence can be neglected in the case of a standard building, might become important. The changing role of life cycle subsystems and their increased inter-dependency fully justify the application of LCA. As a major conclusion of the research, the overall goal of environmental sustainability behind the construction of the house in Morozzo has been proved to be compatible with the life cycle approach, although applied ex post. The higher embodied burdens were compensated by the remarkable operational energy saving. However, the LCA has shown that while the winter heat requirement was reduced by a ratio of 10:1, the life cycle energy was only reduced by 2.1:1 and the life cycle impacts were only reduced by 2.5:11.6:1, depending on the indicator.

Fig. 6. Comparison between LEH and SH (end-point indicators).

In such a context, it becomes clear that LCA can represent a very interesting and powerful environmental assessment and ecodesign tool. A further comparison between the LEH and SH has highlighted some very interesting aspects. The winter heat requirement was drastically reduced from 109 kWh/m2 in the SH to 10 kWh/m2 in the LEH, which roughly corresponds to a ratio of 10 to 1 (10:1). In a from-cradle-to-gate perspective, when considering the overall efciency of the heat pump/electricity or boiler/natural gas energy chains, the ratio between the life cycle energy (GER) of SH and LEH roughly remains unchanged (9.5:1). As shown in Table 8, when considering the whole use phase, therefore including DHW, cooking, lighting and use of appliances,

880

G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 869880 [15] ISO 14044, Environmental ManagementLife Cycle AssessmentRequirements and Guidelines, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [16] ENEA, Rapporto Energia e Ambiente 2007, ENEA, Rome, Italy, 2008. [17] J.B. Guinee, Handbook on Life Cycle AssessmentOperational Guide to the ISO Standards, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002. [18] SETAC, Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: A Code of Practice, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), 1993. [19] B.L.P. Peuportier, Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation of single family houses in the French context, Energy and Buildings 33 (2001) 443 450. [20] S. Junnila, Life cycle assessment of environmentally signicant aspects of an ofce building, Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research 2 (2004) (Special Series). [21] C. Thormark, A low energy building in a life cycle-its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential, Building and Environment 37 (2002) 429435. [22] C. Scheuer, G.A. Keoleian, P. Reppe, Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications, Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 10491064. [23] C. Thormark, The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling potential of a building, Building and Environment 41 (2006) 10191026. [24] D. Kellenberger, H.G. Althaus, Relevance of simplications in LCA of building components, Building and Environment 44 (2009) 818825. [25] C. Matasci, Life cycle assessment of 21 buildings: analysis of the different life phases and highlighting of the main causes of their impact on the environment, in: Memoire N. 128/2006, Master en Sciences Naturelles de lEnvironnement ` Univ. de Geneve, ETH Zurich, Zurich, 2006. [26] EDILCLIMA EC501Edicio Invernale (L. 10/91) vers. 6, Available from: http:// www.edilclima.it. [27] Piano Energetico della Provincia di Torino, 1997, Available from: http://www. provincia.torino.it. [28] MICENE, Misure dei consumi di energia elettrica in 110 abitazioni italianeeERG, End-use Efciency Research Group, Dipartimento di Energetica, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, 2004. [29] APAT, I riuti da costruzione e demolizione, Rome, 2005, Available from: http:// www.apat.it. [30] G.A. Blengini, E. Garbarino, Sustainable constructions: ecoproles of primary and recycled building materials, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium Mining Planning and Equipment Selection MPES2006, Turin, Italy, (2006), pp. 765770. [31] L. Brimacombe, P. Shoneld, Sustainability and Steel Recycling, International Iron and Steel Institute, 2001. [32] ECOINVENT, Life Cycle Inventories of Production Systems, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, 2007 Available from: http://www.ecoinvent.ch. [33] SimaPro 7.2, Software and Database Manual, Pre Consultants BV, Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2008. [34] G.W. Sonnemann, M. Schumacher, F. Castells, Uncertainty assessment by a Monte Carlo simulation in a life cycle inventory of electricity produced by a waste incinerator, Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003) 279292. [35] R. Frischknecht, N. Jungbluth, Overview and Methodology Data v2.0 (2007), Ecoinvent Report No. 1, 2007, Available from: http://www.pre.nl/ecoinvent. [36] I. Boustead, G.F. Hancock, Handbook of Industrial Energy Analysis, Chichester/ John Wiley, New York, 1979. [37] IPCC, Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 1996. [38] SEMC, MSR 1999:2Requirements for Environmental Product Declarations, Swedish Environmental Management Council, 2000 Available from: http:// www.environdec.com. [39] D.A. Georgakellos, The use of the LCA polygon framework in waste management, Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 17 (2006) 490 507. [40] I. Boustead, B.R. Yaros, S. Papasavva, Eco-Labels and Eco-IndicesDo They Make Sense? Paper Number: 00TLCC-49, Society of Automotive Engineers Inc., 2000 Available from: http://www.boustead-consulting.co.uk. [41] B. Lopez Mesa, A. Pitarch, A. Tomas, T. Gallego, Comparison of environmental impacts of building structures with in situ cast oors and with precast concrete oors, Building and Environment 44 (2009) 699712. [42] R. Frischknecht, N. Jungbluth, Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods, Data v2.0 (2007), Ecoinvent report No.3, 2007, Available from: http:// www.pre.nl/ecoinvent. [43] UNI EN 832, Thermal Performance of BuildingsCalculation of Energy Use for Heating, Residential Buildings, CEN European Bureau for Standardisation, 2001. [44] M. Asif, T. Muneer, R. Kelley, Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling home in Scotland, Building and Environment 42 (2007) 13911394.

These results necessarily reect the complex combination of the case study building unique features, the locally adopted construction techniques, the behavioural pattern of Italian citizens, site-specic climate conditions, local regulations and the Italian energy mix. Therefore the results should not be generalised, although some general remarks can certainly be given. These ndings emphasise the need for systematically verifying the environmental performance of future low energy building using a holistic approach, as single improvements might not be effective in a life cycle perspective, and could even disappoint expectations. Energy and environmental certication schemes, in Italy and elsewhere, would certainly benet from the adoption of a life cycle approach, but it should be kept in mind that excessive simplications, generalisations and blind reliance on user-friendly tools and non-transparent databases still remain a real threat to genuine sustainable development. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Studio Roatta Architetti Associati ` in Mondov for the data and information supplied, the staff of Regione Piemonte for the support, Msc. Agnese Fiorenza for her help in the data collection and elaboration. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.009. References
[1] I. Sartori, A.G. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: a review article, Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 249257. [2] G.A. Blengini, Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a case study in Turin-Italy, Building and Environment 44 (2009) 319330. [3] O. Ortiz, C. Bonnet, J.C. Bruno, F. Castells, Sustainability based on LCM of residential dwellings: a case study in Catalonia, Spain, Building and Environment 44 (2009) 584594. [4] S. Blanchard, P. Reppe, LCA of a Residential Home in Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Michigan, 1998, p. 60. [5] C. Thormark, Environmental analysis of a building with reused building materials, International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings 1 (2000). [6] K. Adalberth, A. Almgren, E.H. Petersen, Life Cycle Assessment of four multi-family buildings, International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings 2 (2001). [7] T.Y. Chen, J. Burnett, C.K. Chau, Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential building of Hong Kong, Energy 26 (4) (2001) 323340. [8] B. Maddox, L. Nunn, Life Cycle Analysis of Clay Brick Housing Based on a Typical Project Home, The Centre for Sustainable Technology, University of NewCastle, NewCastle, 2003, p. 34. [9] M. Erlandsson, M. Borgb, Generic LCA-methodology applicable for buildings, constructions and operation services: today practice and development needs, Building and Environment 38 (2003) 919938. [10] N. Mithraratne, B. Vale, Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses, Building and Environment 39 (2004) 483492. [11] S. Citherlet, T. Defaux, Energy and environmental comparison of three variants of a family house during its whole life span, Building and Environment 42 (2007) 591598. [12] N. Huberman, D. Pearlmutter, A life-cycle energy analysis of building materials in the Negev desert, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 837848. [13] O. Ortiz, F. Castells, G. Sonnemann, Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA, Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 2839. [14] ISO 14040, Environmental ManagementLife Cycle AssessmentPrinciples and Framework, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi