1. Faculty of Civil Engineering, Brno University of Technology, struhala.k@fce.vutbr.cz Karel STRUHALA, Zuzana STRÁNSKÁ IMPACT OF BUILDING'S LIFESPAN ON THE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT

2. Introduction - Objectives  Objectives of the assessment  Evaluation of environmental impacts of selected building‘s life cycle  Comparison of results in regard to varying service life lengths (50-100 years) 5-year steps Total results and annual results per 1m 2 of building‘s area  Comparison of four service life scenarios Two “reference” scenarios Two “enhanced” scenarios

3. Methodology and Tools  Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)  Based on ISO 14040 and following standards (especially EN 15978)  The EN 15978 divides a building’s life cycle into four stages and 16 modules: Product stage – modules A1 to A3 Construction stage – modules A4 and A5 Use stage – modules B1 to B7 End of life stage – modules C1 to C4  System boundaries  Cradle-to-Grave system boundaries – modules A1 to C4 according to EN 15978, excluding module B5 Refurbishment Only the building and processes directly connected with it and its use are included in the assessment – e.g. the landscaping is not included The amounts of materials, energy, etc. are based on the design documentation

4. Methodology and Tools  Characterization model  The results are calculated using CML 2001 (version November 2010) characterization factors  Normalization CML 2001 EU 25 (version November 2010) is used to simplify the comparison of results of individual scenarios  Results in seven out of 12 available impact categories are presented – those required by EN 15978: Abiotic depletion (ADP elements) Abiotic depletion (ADP fossil) Acidification Potential (AP) Eutrophication Potential (EP) Global Warming Potential (GWP) Ozone Layer Depletion Potential (ODP) Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)

5. Methodology and Tools  Tools and databases  GaBi 4 tool  Ecoinvent 2.0 database  Some simplifications and estimations had to be made due to the lack of suitable data in the design or in the database – especially in regard to the construction and deconstruction processes and waste management Some materials are not included in the database. Two or more individual processes are used to represent them.

6. Assessed Building  General information  Two-storey detached house without basement  Net floor area 105.55 m 2  Four tenants (according to designs)  Building site located in Eastern Bohemia  Structures  Reinforced concrete foundations insulated with XPS  External Walls and roof made of SIPs (Structural Insulated Panels) insulated with mineral wool  Interior walls made of SIPs with plasterboard cladding  Floor made of timber beams and OSB boards with plasterboard cladding  Plastic doors and windows with double or triple glazing

7. Assessed Building  Equipment  Heating and DHW – gas fireplace/boiler  Mechanical ventilation – central ventilation unit, plastic ducts  Sanitary equipment – common equipment (shower, bathtub, sink, etc.); no water conservation measures  No renewable energy sources  Designed annual energy and water consumption and waste production (4 tenants)  70.0 GJ of natural gas  5.76 GJ of electric energy  58.4 m 3 of water  790 kg of municipal waste

8. Assessed Scenarios  S1 – “Erroneous” reference scenario  Includes the production of materials and construction of the building (modules A1 to A5) Energy and water consumption during the construction of the building (module A5 according to EN 15978) were estimated based on the consultations with the builder  Use of the building is insufficiently addressed – a common mistake in design of buildings as well as in LCAs Modules B3 Repair, B4 Replacement and B5 Refurbishment are not included Energy and water consumption and waste production are constant, corresponding with designed occupancy (four tenants)  End of life scenario includes demolition and landfilling It is based on information about waste management in Czech Republic (Czech Environmental Information Agency; 2015)

9. Assessed Scenarios  S2 – “Proper” reference scenario  Includes the production of materials and construction of the building (modules A1 to A5) Energy and water consumption during the construction of the building (module A5 according to EN 15978) were estimated based on the consultations with the builder  Use of the building includes repairs and replacement of structures and equipment E.g. estimated service life of the ventilation unit is 20 years Energy and water consumption and waste production are constant, corresponding with designed occupancy (four tenants)  End of life scenario includes demolition and landfilling It is based on information about waste management in Czech Republic (Czech Environmental Information Agency; 2015)

10. Assessed Scenarios  S3 – Neglected maintenance scenario  Includes the production of materials and construction of the building (modules A1 to A5) Energy and water consumption during the construction of the building (module A5 according to EN 15978) were estimated based on the consultations with the builder  Use of the building includes repairs and replacement of structures and equipment Scenario expects that the tenants would neglect the maintenance of the building and equipment. This is represented by increasing energy consumption (e.g. due to worsening efficiency of the boiler or failure) Energy and water consumption and waste production are constant, corresponding with designed occupancy (four tenants)  End of life scenario includes demolition and landfilling It is based on information about waste management in Czech Republic (Czech Environmental Information Agency; 2015)

11. Assessed Scenarios  S4 – Neglected maintenance and varying occupancy scenario  Includes the production of materials and construction of the building (modules A1 to A5) Energy and water consumption during the construction of the building (module A5 according to EN 15978) were estimated based on the consultations with the builder  Use of the building includes repairs and replacement of structures and equipment Scenario expects that the tenants would neglect the maintenance of the building and equipment. This is represented by increasing energy consumption (e.g. due to worsening efficiency of the boiler) Energy and water consumption and waste production are fluctuating (estimated) due to varying occupancy – between two and four tenants in time  End of life scenario includes demolition and landfilling It is based on information about waste management in Czech Republic (Czech Environmental Information Agency; 2015)

12. Assessed Scenarios  Varying occupancy in S4 scenario

13. Assessed Scenarios  Natural gas consumption in all scenarios

14. Results  Total environmental impacts per 1 m 2 of net floor area 50-year building’s service life Impact cat.Scenario S1Scenario S2Scenario S3Scenario S4Unit ADP elements8,47E-031,21E-021,22E-02 kg Sb-Eq.·m -2 ADP fossil7,30E+017,65E+017,83E+01 MJ·m -2 AP7,70E+008,68E+008,84E+008,78E+00kg SO 2 -Eq.·m -2 EP4,76E+004,89E+004,93E+003,94E+00kg Phos.-Eq.·m -2 GWP3,59E+033,80E+033,96E+033,88E+03kg CO 2 -Eq.·m -2 ODP1,76E-033,05E-033,07E-03 kg R11-Eq.·m -2 POCP1,25E+001,37E+001,41E+001,39E+00kg Eth.-Eq.·m -2 100-year building’s service life Impact cat.Scenario S1Scenario S2Scenario S3Scenario S4Unit ADP elements1,04E-022,50E-022,52E-022,51E-02kg Sb-Eq.·m -2 ADP fossil1,36E+021,50E+021,55E+021,54E+02MJ·m -2 AP1,25E+011,64E+011,68E+011,67E+01kg SO 2 -Eq.·m -2 EP8,83E+009,46E+009,54E+007,60E+00kg Phos.-Eq.·m -2 GWP7,11E+037,94E+038,38E+038,18E+03kg CO 2 -Eq.·m -2 ODP2,16E-036,06E-036,13E-036,12E-03kg R11-Eq.·m -2 POCP2,03E+002,49E+002,59E+002,55E+00kg Eth.-Eq.·m -2

15. Results  Total environmental impacts per 1 m 2 of net floor area 50-year building’s service life Impact cat.Scenario S1Scenario S2Scenario S3Scenario S4Unit ADP elements8,47E-031,21E-021,22E-02 kg Sb-Eq.·m -2 ADP fossil7,30E+017,65E+017,83E+01 MJ·m -2 AP7,70E+008,68E+008,84E+008,78E+00kg SO 2 -Eq.·m -2 EP4,76E+004,89E+004,93E+003,94E+00kg Phos.-Eq.·m -2 GWP3,59E+033,80E+033,96E+033,88E+03kg CO 2 -Eq.·m -2 ODP1,76E-033,05E-033,07E-03 kg R11-Eq.·m -2 POCP1,25E+001,37E+001,41E+001,39E+00kg Eth.-Eq.·m -2 100-year building’s service life Impact cat.Scenario S1Scenario S2Scenario S3Scenario S4Unit ADP elements1,04E-022,50E-022,52E-022,51E-02kg Sb-Eq.·m -2 ADP fossil1,36E+021,50E+021,55E+021,54E+02MJ·m -2 AP1,25E+011,64E+011,68E+011,67E+01kg SO 2 -Eq.·m -2 EP8,83E+009,46E+009,54E+007,60E+00kg Phos.-Eq.·m -2 GWP7,11E+037,94E+038,38E+038,18E+03kg CO 2 -Eq.·m -2 ODP2,16E-036,06E-036,13E-036,12E-03kg R11-Eq.·m -2 POCP2,03E+002,49E+002,59E+002,55E+00kg Eth.-Eq.·m -2 22.92% increase

16. Results  Total environmental impacts per 1 m 2 of net floor area 50-year building’s service life Impact cat.Scenario S1Scenario S2Scenario S3Scenario S4Unit ADP elements8,47E-031,21E-021,22E-02 kg Sb-Eq.·m -2 ADP fossil7,30E+017,65E+017,83E+01 MJ·m -2 AP7,70E+008,68E+008,84E+008,78E+00kg SO 2 -Eq.·m -2 EP4,76E+004,89E+004,93E+003,94E+00kg Phos.-Eq.·m -2 GWP3,59E+033,80E+033,96E+033,88E+03kg CO 2 -Eq.·m -2 ODP1,76E-033,05E-033,07E-03 kg R11-Eq.·m -2 POCP1,25E+001,37E+001,41E+001,39E+00kg Eth.-Eq.·m -2 100-year building’s service life Impact cat.Scenario S1Scenario S2Scenario S3Scenario S4Unit ADP elements1,04E-022,50E-022,52E-022,51E-02kg Sb-Eq.·m -2 ADP fossil1,36E+021,50E+021,55E+021,54E+02MJ·m -2 AP1,25E+011,64E+011,68E+011,67E+01kg SO 2 -Eq.·m -2 EP8,83E+009,46E+009,54E+007,60E+00kg Phos.-Eq.·m -2 GWP7,11E+037,94E+038,38E+038,18E+03kg CO 2 -Eq.·m -2 ODP2,16E-036,06E-036,13E-036,12E-03kg R11-Eq.·m -2 POCP2,03E+002,49E+002,59E+002,55E+00kg Eth.-Eq.·m -2 111.50% increase 22.92% increase

17. Results  Normalized environmental impacts of Scenario S4 of the building’s service life per 1 m 2 of net floor area in 5-year steps Whole Life-CycleUse stage

18. Results  Normalized environmental impacts of the building’s service life per 1 m 2 of net floor area in 5-year steps

19. Conclusion  Length of the service life has an impact on both total and annual environmental impacts  Omitting repair and replacement scenarios in a building LCA can lead to underestimated results. In case of the assessed building the difference reached up to 22%.  The designed (full) occupancy of the building has slightly higher environmental impacts than “real” occupancy. In case of the assessed building the difference was approximately 5%.

20. Thank you for your attention Feel free to ask any questions or write me an e-mail to struhala.k@fce.vutbr.cz