Proceedings of the International Symposium on

Sustainable Systems and Technologies, v2 (2014)

Evaluation of a Living Building using Dynamic LCA
William O. Collinge University of Pittsburgh, Dept. of Civil & Env. Engineering, woc6@pitt.edu
Cassandra L. Thiel University of Pittsburgh, Dept. of Civil & Env. Engineering, clt31@pitt.edu
Nicole A. Campion University of Pittsburgh, Dept. of Civil & Env. Engineering, nac61@pitt.edu
Amy E. Landis Arizona State Univ., School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built
Environment, amy.landis@asu.edu
Melissa M. Bilec University of Pittsburgh, Dept. of Civil & Env. Engineering, mbilec@pitt.edu
Abstract.
Dynamic life cycle assessment (DLCA) was used to evaluate the environmental performance of a zero-energy
building, the Center for Sustainable Landscapes at Phipps Conservatory in Pittsburgh, PA. The DLCA model
accounted for temporally and spatially explicit modeling of the avoided emissions from on-site renewable energy
systems - geothermal heat storage, and photovoltaic electricity generation. Real building operational data was used
to support the DLCA for the year 2013, including hourly data from July to December. The building data were
combined with electrical grid emissions from national, regional and local sections of the electrical grid. Local electrical
grid data were evaluated at both monthly and hourly intervals. For all spatial and temporal scales examined, avoided
impacts due to reduced demand from the electrical grid were compared with embodied energy and impacts of the
materials used to construct the CSL buildings on-site renewable energy systems. The time when the cumulative
avoided impacts were equal to the embodied impacts in the materials was considered as the payback time in each
impact category. For the categories of fossil energy use, global warming potential, and acidification potential, payback
times were calculated to be in the range of 3 to 8 years, with the local electrical grid producing the longer payback
times due to its lower fossil energy content and emissions stemming from its heavy reliance on nuclear power
generation. Changing the evaluation from a monthly to an hourly time step changed the payback time in the fossil
energy and global warming categories by approximately 10%, while having no effect on acidification. Future research
is needed for environmental impacts in other categories, including indoor impacts, and the development of temporally
and spatially specific impact assessment characterization factors.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technologies (ISSN 2329-9169) is
published annually by the Sustainable Conoscente Network. Melissa Bilec and J un-Ki Choi, co-editors.
ISSSTNetwork@gmail.com.

Copyright 2014 by William O. Collinge, Cassandra L. Thiel, Nicole A. Campion, Amy E, Landis and Melissa M.
Bilec Licensed under CC-BY 3.0.
Cite as:
Evaluation of a Living Building using Dynamic LCA. Proc. ISSST, Collinge, W.O., Thiel, C.L., Campion, N.A., Landis,
A.E., and Bilec, M.M.. Doi information v2 (2014)
If applicable, page number will go here after aggregating all papers
Evaluation of a Living Building using Dynamic LCA
Introduction. With concerns of energy security and climate change, high performance and
zero-energy buildings (ZEBs) are becoming increasingly popular in the US and around the world
due to the energy savings associated with the buildings use phase operations. Building design
typically minimizes energy use through energy-efficiency improvements and meets the
remaining energy requirements through renewable energy technologies, such as photovoltaics
(Li et al. 2013). Energy savings during the use phase, however, can often be achieved at the
expense of materials and systems that can have higher embodied energy and emissions (Thiel
et al. 2013). Life cycle assessment (LCA), a tool to quantify environmental impacts of a product
or process throughout its life cycle, can be used to elucidate the numerous environmental
impacts from multiple building phases, to ultimately assist in the holistic performance of a
building (Lewandowska et al. 2013).
LCA of high-performance buildings. Studies analyzing the life cycle impacts of ZEBs and high
performance structures show that the embodied energy of the materials, particularly those
materials comprising the shell of the structure, increases in ZEBs buildings relative to traditional
buildings (J unnila and Horvath 2003; J unnila et al. 2006; Kofoworola and Gheewala 2008;
Suzuki and Oka 1998; Blengini and Di Carlo 2010b, a). Embodied energy of ZEBs makes up a
large range of 9-46% of a buildings total life cycle energy with potential reductions coming from
end-of-life recycling (Sartori and Hestnes 2007). While the use of renewable energy
technologies often increases the embodied energy of a structure, the total life-cycle energy of
the building is reduced over a traditional building, making high performance buildings a
preferable alternative (Berggren et al. 2013; Sartori and Hestnes 2007).
Previous LCAs of buildings estimate impacts during the use phase using an assumed lifespan
which can vary from 30 to 100 years, anticipated repair and maintenance intervals, and static
estimates of energy use and associated emissions (Ramesh et al. 2010; Scheuer et al. 2003;
Verbeeck and Hens 2010; Aktas and Bilec 2012). Due to these assumptions and the static
nature of LCA, the tool has limited ability to modify a buildings performance during the use
phase. Use-phase modifications typically involve behavior of building occupants and should not
be overlooked in ZEBs, as most are still reliant on grid electricity to buffer energy demands.
Dynamic life cycle assessment (DLCA). DLCA has been suggested as a way to improve the
relevance of the life cycle of buildings. DLCA has been defined as an approach to LCA which
explicitly incorporates dynamic process modeling in the context of temporal and spatial
variations in the surrounding industrial and environmental systems. (Collinge et al. 2013). For
example, dynamic process modeling for a buildings use phase could include energy modeling
that incorporates near-real time data such as occupancy and weather conditions, or continuous
energy metering. Temporal and spatial variations in surrounding systems are exemplified by the
electrical grid, which has a different mix of fuel types depending on the location and timing of the
study. A previous case study of a LEED Gold rated university building showed that DLCA
influenced the use phase results by up to 50% when compared to a typical static LCA (Collinge
et al. 2013).
Case study building: Phipps Center for Sustainable Landscapes. Phipps Conservatory and
Botanical Gardens was built in 1893 as a gift to the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. As part of
their green capital plan, Phipps constructed the Center for Sustainable Landscapes (CSL), a
24,350 square foot educational, research, and administrative office. Opened in 2013, the CSL is
a 30-story, cast-in-place concrete and steel framed structure with an aluminum/glass curtain
wall and wood cladding for the envelope and a combination green roof, paver patio, and
thermoplastic polyolefin white roof. The CSL utilizes passive solar design, 14- 510ft geothermal
wells, a rooftop energy recovery unit, a vertical axis wind turbine, a 110 kW photovoltaic (PV)
If applicable, page number will go here after aggregating all papers
W. Collinge, et. al
system, a constructed lagoon and wetland water treatment system, permeable paving, and a
green roof (Phipps 2014). While already earning LEED Platinum and Sustainable Sites Initiative
(SITES) certification, Phipps is pursuing Living Building Challenge v1.3 certification for the CSL
which requires net-zero energy consumption on an annual basis (ILFI 2010; USGBC 2012;
Phipps 2014).
New Green Building Standards: Living Building Challenge. In 2006, the Cascadia Green
Building Council launched the Living Building Challenge (LBC), the most rigorous green building
rating system to date. Today, the LBC is overseen by the International Living Future Institute
(ILFI). Version 1.3 of the LBC standards, released in August 2009, is divided into six
prerequisites or petals, all must be met to achieve certification. The petals are: beauty and
inspiration, site, materials, energy, indoor quality, and water (ILFI 2014). The building must meet
net-zero energy and net-zero water requirements on an annual basis and is only certified after
one year of use and operation to ensure its compliance to these criteria. As a prerequisite for
certification, project owners must also purchase a one-time carbon offset for the embodied
carbon footprint of the structure based upon its square footage and construction type.
Research Question. While new standards such as the LBC seek to enhance the actual
performance of green buildings, we hypothesize that the diurnal and seasonal variations in the
regional electrical generation mix will combine with the timing of on-site supply and demand to
make the LCIA results more complex than a simple metric of net energy use. In short, a building
with net zero annual energy use may still have significant emissions during the building use
phase due to variations in grid production when buying and selling electricity (or conversely,
may exceed its energy performance in other environmental categories.
Investigative Method. We use the Indoor Environmental Quality +Dynamic LCA (IEQ+DLCA)
model developed previously to consider both external (conventional LCA) and internal (IEQ)
building impacts (Collinge et al. 2013 ; Collinge et al. 2013). The IEQ+DLCA model accounts for
timing of life cycle emissions as well as impacts to building occupants in the typical human
health LCIA categories (cancer, non-cancer and particulate matter) from indoor emissions and
intake of outdoor air pollution. For this paper, we focused especially on the timing of on-site
renewable energy generation with respect to the electricity generation mix at multiple scales of
the electrical grid. An extended analysis, considering a longer time period and including IEQ
impacts, is the subject of ongoing research.
The CSL building obtains net-zero energy status is obtained by exporting energy during times of
peak production, and importing from the grid at times of low production. In the case of CSL,
exported energy flows to the remainder of the Phipps Conservatory campus, offsetting a portion
of the campus grid usage. The PV electricity production is complemented by the geothermal
system (also referred to as a ground-source heat pump) and the buildings use of passive
heating and cooling strategies such as orientation, shading, minimally cooled atrium and
openable windows, as well as heat recovery ventilation using an enthalpy wheel. No electricity
is used for heating or cooling; however the geothermal and heat recovery systems consume
slightly more electricity than the HVAC system of a typical building. Figure 1 shows the CSL
building and a conceptual graphical model of the on-site renewable energy system, along with
electrical grid details discussed in the following paragraphs.
If applicable, page number will go here after aggregating all papers
Evaluation of a Living Building using Dynamic LCA

Figure 1: Center for Sustainable Landscapes (CSL) building, energy systems and electrical grid. The CSL
building is pictured at top right. A conceptual model of how the buildings on-site renewable energy systems lead to
reduced impacts from energy use is shown at the lower right. The varying levels of detail of the US electrical grid are
shown at left, corresponding to the spatial organization box in the diagram.
Data Collection for the CSL building. Data collection for the CSL building began in J anuary 2013
and continues to the present. For J anuary through J une of 2013, monthly electrical meter
readings (including PV production) were available. Beginning in J uly 2013, detailed hourly data
were recorded including electrical consumption and PV production, ground source
heating/cooling use, weather, indoor environmental conditions and building control systems
information. Because data were available only at the monthly level for the first half of 2013, only
monthly analysis was performed. Both monthly and hourly analyses were performed for the
second half of 2013.
Grid Mix and Hourly Emissions Profile. Production and emissions data was collected at a
national and region level, including North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and
the US Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated
Database (eGRID). The NERC is a not-for-profit organization that develops and enforces
reliability standards for the bulk power system in the US, Canada, and Mexico. The EPAs
eGRID characterizes net generation, emissions rates, and other attributes of almost all electric
power generated in the US, and is typically used in carbon footprinting studies. Air emissions
data from eGRID is available at a plant level and at aggregations through eGRID subregion and
NERC region, as shown in Figure 1. In order to assess emissions of individual power plants on
an hourly basis, data was collected from power plants within the Duquesne electric power
If applicable, page number will go here after aggregating all papers
W. Collinge, et. al
market (DUQ), part of the regional transmission organization PJ M which services the Pittsburgh
region. Hourly emissions data from the EPAs Air Markets Program was collected for the 8 non-
hydroelectric power generation facilities in the DUQ zone, shown in Table 2. The EPA Air
Markets Program reports SO2, CO2, and NOx emissions to air, as part of EPA's emissions
trading programs (EPA 2014).
DLCA evaluation of the CSL building. Results incorporate the analysis of material use and
embodied energy LCA previously reported for CSL and compared to conventional buildings
(Campion et al. 2012). The PV and geothermal energy systems contributed approximately 30%
to the total embodied energy of the CSL building. LCIA categories included in this preliminary
analysis include fossil energy, climate change and acidification. Photochemical ozone
production and human health (internal and external to the buildings) will be included in future
work. Results will include an analysis of the payback period - the time it takes to recoup the
environmental impact of the additional embodied energy - in each LCIA category, accounting for
emissions timing as well as IEQ effects in the relevant human health categories.
Results. The CSL achieved net-zero energy performance in 2013, as shown via the collected
monthly electricity use and PV generation for the CSL building in Figure 2. The cumulative curve
shows that the building is a net producer of electricity in the summer and a net user of electricity
in the winter. Although both the heating and cooling loads are satisfied by the geothermal
system, the passive cooling features of the building reduce the geothermal cooling load in the
summertime and thereby reduce the electricity required to operate the geothermal and energy
recovery systems as well.

-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
,

1
0
0
0

k
W
h
Month (Year 2013)
Net grid electricity use On-site PV generation
Metered electricity use Cumulative grid electricity use

Figure 2: Monthly electricity use and generation for 2013 for the CSL building.
Figure 3 shows the hourly data for the building from J uly through December 2013. Net site
energy use was calculated by subtracting both the on-site PV production and the ground-source
heating and cooling energy from the metered electrical use. A conventional heating and cooling
If applicable, page number will go here after aggregating all papers
Evaluation of a Living Building using Dynamic LCA
system, with a gas-fired heating component and an electrical cooling component, was assumed
as an alternative to the geothermal energy used for heating.

-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
J
u
l

0
:
0
0
J
u
l

6
:
0
0
J
u
l

1
2
:
0
0
J
u
l

1
8
:
0
0
A
u
g

0
:
0
0
A
u
g

6
:
0
0
A
u
g

1
2
:
0
0
A
u
g

1
8
:
0
0
S
e
p

0
:
0
0
S
e
p

6
:
0
0
S
e
p

1
2
:
0
0
S
e
p

1
8
:
0
0
O
c
t

0
:
0
0
O
c
t

6
:
0
0
O
c
t

1
2
:
0
0
O
c
t

1
8
:
0
0
N
o
v

0
:
0
0
N
o
v

6
:
0
0
N
o
v

1
2
:
0
0
N
o
v

1
8
:
0
0
D
e
c

0
:
0
0
D
e
c

6
:
0
0
D
e
c

1
2
:
0
0
D
e
c

1
8
:
0
0
E
n
e
r
g
y

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
,

k
W
h
Month and hour of the day (2013)
On-site PV generation Metered electrical use Ground source heating/cooling Net site energy use

Figure 3: Hourly average metered energy use, generation and net use for the CSL building, by month, for
July - December 2013. Net site energy savings are calculated by (Metered electrical use) - (Ground source
heating/cooling) - (On-site PV generation).
Figure 4 shows the monthly electricity generation fossil fuel use and emissions for 2013 for the
US national grid, mid-Atlantic regional grid (Reliability First Corporation or RFC), the EPA
eGRID region corresponding to the western portion RFC (RFC West), and local Duquesne Light
utility (DUQ) grid, along with measured CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions from the generating
plants located in the DUQ grid. Although power is traded nearly continuously between local
utilities and even between regions, the DUQ grid is approximately balanced on an annual basis.
Generation in the DUQ area is dominated by a nuclear power plant (Beaver Valley) supplying
approximately 75% of the annual load; the remaining generation is almost entirely from coal.
The overall fossil fuel use of the DUQ grid is much lower than the regional and national grids for
this reason.

In Figure 5, the hourly fossil fuel use and emissions data for the DUQ grid for J uly-December
2013 are shown with the net site energy use for the CSL building (from Figure 3) also shown for
reference. Several coal-fired power plants within the DUQ grid are used as load-following or
even peaking power plants for summer cooling demands, with output increasing in the
morning and decreasing in the evening. These plants are also used on a more continuous basis
to provide increased power associated with heating demand in the winter, although at a slightly
lower level.


If applicable, page number will go here after aggregating all papers
W. Collinge, et. al
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
C
O
2

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
k
g
/
k
W
h
)
;

S
O
2

a
n
d

N
O
x

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
g
/
k
W
h
)
F
o
s
s
i
l

e
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
W
h
/
k
W
h
)
Month (Year 2013)
National - Fossil energy use RFC - Fossil energy use
RFC West - Fossil energy use DUQ - Fossil energy use
DUQ - CO2 Emissions DUQ - SO2 Emissions
DUQ - NOx Emissions

Figure 4: Monthly electricity generation fossil fuel use and emissions for 2013 for the US national grid, mid-
Atlantic region (RFC), western portion of the region (RFC West), and local Duquesne Light utility (DUQ).
Generating plant level fossil energy use fromthe primary fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) are shown on the
left axis; CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions are shown on the right axis.
-1.00
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
J
u
l

0
:
0
0
J
u
l

6
:
0
0
J
u
l

1
2
:
0
0
J
u
l

1
8
:
0
0
A
u
g

0
:
0
0
A
u
g

6
:
0
0
A
u
g

1
2
:
0
0
A
u
g

1
8
:
0
0
S
e
p

0
:
0
0
S
e
p

6
:
0
0
S
e
p

1
2
:
0
0
S
e
p

1
8
:
0
0
O
c
t

0
:
0
0
O
c
t

6
:
0
0
O
c
t

1
2
:
0
0
O
c
t

1
8
:
0
0
N
o
v

0
:
0
0
N
o
v

6
:
0
0
N
o
v

1
2
:
0
0
N
o
v

1
8
:
0
0
D
e
c

0
:
0
0
D
e
c

6
:
0
0
D
e
c

1
2
:
0
0
D
e
c

1
8
:
0
0
C
O
2

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
k
g
/
k
W
h
)
;

S
O
2

a
n
d

N
O
x

e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s

(
g
/
k
W
h
)
E
n
e
r
g
y

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
,

1
0
0
0

k
W
h
Month and hour of the day (2013)
Net site energy use
DUQ - Fossil energy
DUQ - CO2 emissions
DUQ - SO2 emissions
DUQ - NOx emissions

Figure 5: Hourly electricity generation fossil fuel use and emissions for the local utility, Duquesne Light
(DUQ) grid. Net site energy use at the CSL building is shown on the left axis for reference, and grid
emissions are shown on the right axis.
If applicable, page number will go here after aggregating all papers
Evaluation of a Living Building using Dynamic LCA
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
G
e
o
t
h
e
r
m
a
l

e
m
b
o
d
i
e
d

e
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

u
s
e
,

1
0
0
0

k
W
h
Month (Year 2013)
Total renewable energy system materials
Renewable operation, site energy
Renewable operation, source energy (National grid)
Renewable operation, source energy (Regional grid RFC West)
Renewable operation, source energy (Local grid DUQ)
Renewable operation, source energy (Local grid DUQ) - Integrated hourly

Figure 6: Embodied fossil energy and energy use for the CSL building in 2013. The embodied energy of the
materials making up the renewable energy systems (geothermal and photovoltaic) is shown as the green
bar. Each line on the graph represents the cumulative energy savings subtracted fromthe materials total
using the US national, RFC West regional and local DUQ grids on a monthly basis, and the DUQ grid on an
hourly basis.
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%
120%
J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
R
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e

s
y
s
t
e
m
s

n
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

i
m
p
a
c
t
s
Month (Year 2013)
Renewable energy system materials Source energy, local grid DUQ
Source energy (integrated hourly), local grid DUQ GWP, local grid DUQ
GWP (integrated hourly), local grid DUQ AP, local grid DUQ
AP (integrated hourly), local grid DUQ

Figure 7: Embodied fossil energy and emissions for the CSL building in 2013. LCIA categories of fossil
energy, global warming potential (GWP) and acidification potential (AP) are shown. Curves for each category
are normalized to the impacts fromthe construction materials in that category. Cumulative impact savings
are shown for the local DUQ grid at monthly and hourly intervals.
If applicable, page number will go here after aggregating all papers
W. Collinge, et. al
The embodied fossil energy in the on-site renewable energy systems at the CSL building is
shown in Figure 6, along with the avoided fossil energy associated with its use as a replacement
for grid electricity. The avoided fossil energy curves for the different electrical grids are shown
beginning at the top of the embodied impacts bar, such that the time corresponding to a zero
value (not shown since it is in the future) would identify the payback time. Because the grid
mixes differ significantly, the time it takes to offset the initial impacts embodied in the renewable
energy systems (the payback time) varies depending on which grid is used. Payback times were
extrapolated from the 2013 data, though actual operating data for future years should be
included when available. The lower fossil fuel use and lower emissions for the DUQ grid (heavy
reliance on nuclear generation) increased the payback time for the embedded fossil energy from
3 years to almost 7 years, compared to the national and regional grids, which differ only slightly
from each other in this metric. Calculating the model at an hourly interval yielded some modest
differences, primarily during the summer, when daytime building operations coincided with high
on-site PV production and higher levels of coal generation on the grid, as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 7 shows the normalized embodied impacts and use phase curves for fossil energy use
as well as global warming potential (GWP) and acidification potential (AP), calculated using the
TRACI LCIA method coupled with the hourly actual emissions data for the generating plants
from the EPA Air Markets program. Curves are shown for the DLCA model results
corresponding to both monthly and hourly intervals, although the hourly curves incorporate
monthly data points from J anuary to J une 2013. Incorporating the hourly data resulted in a slight
(~10% extrapolated to a full year) decrease in the fossil energy impact and GWP impacts
compared to the monthly data, but no change to the AP impact.
Discussion. Evaluation of the Phipps CSL data using the DLCA model provides a more
thorough analysis of the ongoing environmental impacts of this building compared to either a
static LCA or an annual net-zero site energy criteria. The differences between national, regional
and local electrical grids are potentially important in calculating the environmental return on
investment in energy efficiency or renewable energy production at the level of individual
buildings. A highlight of the results is that the hourly analysis indicated a slight but measurable
improvement in the avoided impacts compared to the monthly analysis, because of the
coinciding peaks in on-site solar production and electrical grid emissions. In other words, the PV
production offset the demand for grid electricity at times when the grid generation mix had the
highest environmental impacts. Future work will extend this analysis to include the
environmental impact categories of photochemical ozone production and human health
(respiratory, cancer and noncancer impacts). The full IEQ+DLCA model will be used to examine
the increased impacts of photochemical ozone precursors in the summer ozone season, and
to incorporate the indoor impacts of the buildings performance on its occupants.
Acknowledgements. This work was supported by National Science Foundation under EFRI-
SEED Grant #1038139. The authors thank staff from Phipps Conservatory and J ie Zhao of
Carnegie Mellon University for assistance with data collection.
References
Aktas CB, Bilec MM (2012) Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results. The
International J ournal of Life Cycle Assessment 17 (3):337-349
Berggren B, Hall M, Wall M (2013) LCE analysis of buildingsTaking the step towards Net Zero
Energy Buildings. Energy and Buildings 62:381-391
Blengini GA, Di Carlo T (2010a) The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and
materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy and Buildings 42 (6):869-880
If applicable, page number will go here after aggregating all papers
Evaluation of a Living Building using Dynamic LCA
Blengini GA, Di Carlo T (2010b) Energy-saving policies and low-energy residential buildings: An
LCA case study to support decision makers in piedmont (Italy). International J ournal of
Life Cycle Assessment 15 (7):652-665
Campion N, Thiel CL, DeBlois J , Woods NC, Landis AE, Bilec MM (2012) Life cycle assessment
perspectives on delivering an infant in the US. Science of the Total Environment
425:191-198. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.006
Collinge WO, Landis AE, J ones AK, Schaefer LA, Bilec MM (2013) Dynamic life cycle
assessment: framework and application to an institutional building. International J ournal
of Life Cycle Assessment 18:518-532. doi:10.1007/s11367-012-0528-2
Collinge WO, Landis AE, J ones AK, Schaefer LA, Bilec MM (2013 ) Integrating indoor
environmental quality metrics in a dynamic life cycle assessment framework for whole
buildings. Buildings and the Environment 62:182-190.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2013.01.015
EPA (2014) Air Markets Program Data. US Environmental Protection Agency,
http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/
ILFI (2010) Living Building Challenge 2.0. International Living Future Institute.
http://ilbi.org/lbc/Standard-Documents/LBC2-0.pdf. Accessed February 27 2013
ILFI (2014) Living Building Challenge. International Living Future Institute. http://living-
future.org/lbc/. 2014
J unnila S, Horvath A (2003) Life-Cycle Environmental Effects of an Office Building. J ournal of
Infrastructure Systems 9 (4):157-166
J unnila S, Horvath A, Guggemos AA (2006) Life-Cycle Assessment of Office Buildings in Europe
and the United States. J ournal of Infrastructure Systems 12 (1):10-17
Kofoworola O, Gheewala S (2008) Environmental life cycle assessment of a commercial office
building in Thailand. The International J ournal of Life Cycle Assessment 13 (6):498-511.
doi:10.1007/s11367-008-0012-1
Lewandowska A, Noskowiak A, Pajchrowski G (2013) Comparative life cycle assessment of
passive and traditional residential buildings' use with a special focus on energy-related
aspects. Energy and Buildings 67:635-646. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.09.002
Li DH, Yang L, Lam J C (2013) Zero energy buildings and sustainable development implications
a review. Energy 54:1-10
Phipps (2014) Center for Sustainable Landscapes. Phipps Conservatory and Botanical
Gardens,. http://phipps.conservatory.org/project-green-heart/green-heart-at-
phipps/center-for-sustainable-landscapes.aspx. 2014
Ramesh T, Prakash R, Shukla KK (2010) Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview.
Energy and Buildings 42 (10):1592-1600
Sartori I, Hestnes AG (2007) Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy
buildings: A review article. Energy and Buildings 39 (3):249-257
Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental performance of
a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energy and
Buildings 35 (10):1049-1064
Suzuki M, Oka T (1998) Estimation of life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of office
buildings in J apan. Energy and Buildings 28 (1):33-41
Thiel CL, Campion N, Landis AE, J ones AK, Schaefer LA, Bilec MM (2013) A materials life cycle
assessment of a net-zero energy building. Energies 6 (2):1125-1141.
doi:10.3390/en6021125
USGBC (2012) What LEED Is. http://www.usgbc.org/. Accessed September 14 2012
Verbeeck G, Hens H (2010) Life cycle inventory of buildings: A contribution analysis. Building
and Environment 45 (4):964-967. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.10.003

If applicable, page number will go here after aggregating all papers