1. Life Cycle Assessment Of Residential Building
In Sydney, Australia
Saurabh Singh
Department of Civil andCoastal Engineering
University of Florida
Goal and Objectives
• The overarching goal of this research is to perform
whole building life cycle analysis from cradle to
grave and find assembly causing highest amount of
landemissionsandreplacingitwithnew assembly.
OBJECTIVES:
• Find the stage leading to highest Total primary
energyconsumption
• Analyzingoperationalvs embodied effect
• Analyzing life cycle environmental impacts
includingGWP,AP,EP,TPE.
Introduction
This research deals with life cycle analysis of a single-
family 2-bedroom residential apartment in Sydney
with total gross floor area of 169m2. Fig.1. shows
the system boundary considered for this study
including all the four stages of life cycle assessment
from material manufacturing to end of life. The
embodied energy and operational energy at different
stages are discussed. Impact assessment parameters
considered for the study includes Global warming
potential (GWP), Acidification potential (AP),
Eutrophication potential (EP), waste generation (WG),
Total primary energy (TPE) with an emphasis on role
of concrete in increased emissions to environment.
Proposal to incorporate the use of new eco-materials in
reducing environmental impact due to residential
buildingis discussed.
Materials
The following materials were required to complete the
research:
• Life Cycle Analysis software (Athena Impact
Estimator).
• Lifecycle Inventory Database (TRACI v2.1).
• Buildingdrawings for assembly formation.
• Operational energy data from peer reviewed
journals.
Methods
The research project was based on the guidelines provi-
dedbythe EPAdocument, the AIAguide to building life
cycle assessment. The four stages considered for the
whole life cycle assessment, goal and scope, life cycle
inventory, life cycle impact assessment, and the results
and suggestions, are all taken into consideration after
proper literature review of whole life cycle analysis done
inpeerreviewedjournal articles.
Important Result
The solidwastegenerateddueto concrete isreducedby 59% from7.2tonnesto 2.9tonnes,afterreplacingconcrete
block walls withinsulated concrete form walls inentirebuilding.
Results
Conclusion
From thegraphs andfiguresit isclear that
• Operational phase consists of major energy
consumption for every impact categories GWP, AP,
EP, TPE.
• The solid waste due to concrete is decreased by
using Eco materials like insulated concrete form to
about 59%
This shows how important it is for the present scena-
rio to use environment friendly construction materials
which usesless embodied energy and leads to less emis-
sions as comparedto conventional materials.
Additional Information
table 1 - land emissions (solid waste generated)
Future Work
This study was focused on results for primary energy
consumption, operational vsembodied effect, summary
measure of impact categories and waste generated due
to use of solid concrete walls. Further study can be
done to find which component of concrete leads to
major emissions and why the results of ozone deple-
tion potential are not similar to otherimpacts shown.
Acknowledgements
A very special thanks to Dr. Katie Indarawis for
helping throughout the various stages of this poster
and paper. Especial thanks to Patrick Bollinger for
constanthelpinbuildingrelated problems.
Contact Information
• Email: singh2412@ufl.edu
• Phone: +1 (352) 5305683
INSULATEDCONCRETEFORMWALL
Figure 2:total primaryenergy-life cycle stage
Figure 4:operational vsembodied TPE
Figure 3: Summary measures by life cycle stages
GWP AP EP ODP TPE
The total primary energy is 8.23 x 106 MJ. Out of this,
the operational phase alone takes almost 92% of primary
energy (7.6 x 106 MJ).
The total global warming potential with respect to
operational energy comes out to be 413 tonnes of
CO2 equivalent, which accounts for 89% of total
energy. From analysis, this is clear that the
operational energy in life cycle analysis of
residential building is always greater than
embodied energy.
Summary Measure Unit PRODUCT
CONSTRUCTION
PROCESS
OPERATIONAL
PHASE
END OF LIFE TOTAL EFFECTS
Global Warming Potential kg CO2 eq 3.42E+04 1.23E+04 4.18E+05 2.34E+03 4.66E+05
Acidification Potential kg SO2 eq 1.75E+02 1.13E+02 3.25E+03 2.34E+01 3.56E+03
Eutrophication Potential kg N eq 8.72E+00 7.37E+00 3.25E+01 1.44E+00 5.00E+01
Ozone Depletion Potential kg CFC-11 eq 3.13E-04 1.82E-05 5.31E-05 1.13E-07 3.84E-04
Total Primary Energy MJ 4.38E+05 1.62E+05 7.60E+06 3.26E+04 8.23E+06
Non-Renewable Energy MJ 3.97E+05 1.60E+05 7.01E+06 3.23E+04 7.60E+06
Fossil Fuel Consumption MJ 3.22E+05 1.58E+05 6.70E+06 3.19E+04 7.21E+06
Figure 1: System boundary
Bark/Wood Waste kg 521.2 1693.2 1065.4 0.0
Concrete Solid Waste kg 1001.3 6058.9 227.2 0.0
Blast Furnace Dust kg 166.1 20.8 0.0 0.0
Steel Waste kg 0.1 7.5 0.9 0.0
Other Solid Waste kg 1787.4 249.9 8683.0 134.1
END OF LIFEEmission Unit PRODUCT CONSTRUCTION PROCESS USE