Você está na página 1de 9

Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 15921600

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings


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

Review

Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview


T. Ramesh a , Ravi Prakash a, , K.K. Shukla b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, UP, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, UP, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Buildings demand energy in their life cycle right from its construction to demolition. Studies on the total
Received 19 September 2009 energy use during the life cycle are desirable to identify phases of largest energy use and to develop
Received in revised form 28 April 2010 strategies for its reduction. In the present paper, a critical review of the life cycle energy analyses of
Accepted 13 May 2010
buildings resulting from 73 cases across 13 countries is presented. The study includes both residential and
ofce buildings. Results show that operating (8090%) and embodied (1020%) phases of energy use are
Keywords:
signicant contributors to buildings life cycle energy demand. Life cycle energy (primary) requirement
Life cycle energy
of conventional residential buildings falls in the range of 150400 kWh/m2 per year and that of ofce
Embodied energy
Operating energy
buildings in the range of 250550 kWh/m2 per year. Buildings life cycle energy demand can be reduced
Life cycle assessment by reducing its operating energy signicantly through use of passive and active technologies even if it
Building leads to a slight increase in embodied energy. However, an excessive use of passive and active features
in a building may be counterproductive. It is observed that low energy buildings perform better than
self-sufcient (zero operating energy) buildings in the life cycle context. Since, most of the case studies
available in open literature pertain to developed and/or cold countries; hence, energy indicative gures
for developing and/or non-cold countries need to be evaluated and compared with the results presented
in this paper.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1592
2. Life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1593
2.1. Embodied energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1593
2.1.1. Initial embodied energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1593
2.1.2. Recurring embodied energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1593
2.2. Operating energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1593
2.3. Demolition energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1593
2.4. Life cycle energy (LCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1593
3. Life cycle assessment (LCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1594
4. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1594
5. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1595
6. Results and discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1596
6.1. Low energy buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1597
7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1598
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1599
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1600

1. Introduction

Buildings are constructed for residential, ofce and commer-


Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9336668662; fax: +91 532 2545341. cial purposes all over the world. They are major contributors to
E-mail address: rprakash234@rediffmail.com (R. Prakash). socio-economic development of a nation and also utilize a large

0378-7788/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.007
T. Ramesh et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 15921600 1593

proportion of energy and available natural resources. Worldwide, the building site. Embodied energy is divided in two parts: initial
3040% of all primary energy is used for buildings and they are embodied energy and recurring embodied energy.
held responsible for 4050% of green house gas emissions [1]. It is
therefore essential for the building construction industry to achieve 2.1.1. Initial embodied energy
sustainable development in the society. Sustainable development is Initial embodied energy of a building is the energy incurred for
viewed as development with low environmental impact, and high initial construction of the building. It is expressed as:
economical and social gains. To achieve the goals of sustainabil- 
ity it is required to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach covering a EEi = mi Mi + Ec (1)
number of features such as energy saving, improved use of materi-
als including water, reuse and recycling of materials and emissions where EEi = initial embodied energy of the building; mi = quantity
control. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings assumes greater sig- of building material (i); Mi = energy content of material (i) per unit
nicance for formulating strategies to achieve reduction in primary quantity; Ec = energy used at site for erection/construction of the
energy use of the buildings and control emissions. building.

2. Life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) 2.1.2. Recurring embodied energy


A large variety of materials are being used in building construc-
Life cycle energy analysis is an approach that accounts for all tion. Some of them may have a life span less than that of the
energy inputs to a building in its life cycle. The system boundaries of building. As a result, they are replaced to rehabilitate the build-
this analysis (Fig. 1) include the energy use of the following phases: ing. In addition to this, buildings require some regular annual
manufacture, use, and demolition. Manufacture phase includes maintenance. The energy incurred for such repair and replacement
manufacturing and transportation of building materials and tech- (rehabilitation) needs to be accounted during the entire life of the
nical installations used in erection and renovation of the buildings. buildings. The sum of the energy embodied in the material, used
Operation phase encompasses all activities related to the use of the in the rehabilitation and maintenance is called recurring embodied
buildings, over its life span. These activities include maintaining energy and can be expressed as:
comfort condition inside the buildings, water use and powering 
appliances. Finally, demolition phase includes destruction of the EEr = mi Mi [(Lb /Lmi ) 1] (2)
building and transportation of dismantled materials to landll sites
and/or recycling plants. Energy use in each phase is discussed where EEr = recurring embodied energy of the building; Lb = life
below. span of the building; Lmi = life span of the material (i).
Embodied energy largely depends on the type of the materials
2.1. Embodied energy used, primary energy sources, and efciency of conversion pro-
cesses in making building materials and products.
Embodied energy is the energy utilized during manufacturing
phase of the building. It is the energy content of all the mate- 2.2. Operating energy
rials used in the building and technical installations, and energy
incurred at the time of erection/construction and renovation of the It is the energy required for maintaining comfort conditions and
building. Energy content of materials refers to the energy used to day-to-day maintenance of the buildings. It is the energy for HVAC
acquire raw materials (excavation), manufacture and transport to (heating, ventilation and air conditioning), domestic hot water,
lighting, and for running appliances. Operational energy largely
varies on the level of comfort required, climatic conditions and
operating schedules. Operating energy in the life span of the build-
ing is expressed as:

OE = EOA Lb (3)

where OE = operating energy in the life span of the building;


EOA = annual operating energy; Lb = life span of the building.

2.3. Demolition energy

At the end of buildings service life, energy is required to demol-


ish the building and transporting the waste material to landll sites
and/or recycling plants. This energy is termed as demolition energy
and expressed as:

DE = ED + ET (4)

where DE = demolition energy; ED = energy incurred for destruc-


tion of the building; ET = energy used for transporting the waste
materials.

2.4. Life cycle energy (LCE)

Life cycle energy of the building is the sum of the all the energies
incurred in its life cycle. It is thus expressed as:

Fig. 1. System boundaries for life cycle energy analysis. LCE = EEi + EEr + OE + DE (5)
1594 T. Ramesh et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 15921600

Energy savings from recycling or reusing the demolished building Later on Adalberth [4] presented a method describing the cal-
materials is not considered in the life cycle energy estimation of the culation of the energy use during the life cycle of a building. The
buildings. This is primarily due to the fact that there is no common method is applied to gain insight into the total energy use of
agreement over attributing this saved energy to the demolished dwellings in its life cycle in his companion paper [5]. The paper
building. However, it would be more appropriate if this energy presented case studies of the total energy use for three single-unit
from recycling or reusing is incorporated in the life cycle energy dwellings built in Sweden wherein, it was reported that 85% of
estimation in overall sense. the total energy usage was required during the operation phase
Studies on the life cycle energy use of the building are desir- and energy used in manufacturing all the construction materi-
able, to evaluate strategies for reduction in energy requirement of als employed in construction with the erection and renovation
the buildings. By performing life cycle energy analysis, the phases amounts approximately to 15% of the total energy use. The trans-
that have highest energy demand can be identied and targeted portation and process energy used during erection and demolition
for improvement. Life cycle energy, if quantied in terms of pri- of the dwellings comprises approximately 1% of the total energy
mary energy can give a useful indication of the greenhouse gas requirement. Several other similar studies are reported in the
emissions attributable to buildings and therefore its impact on the open literature for residential buildings [69] and ofce buildings
environment. However, for broader environmental impact analysis, [1012]. Table 1 shows an abstract of data sources adopted by dif-
life cycle assessment (LCA) of buildings is useful. ferent authors to evaluate life cycle analysis of buildings.
It is concluded from these case studies that operating energy has
major share (8090%) in life cycle energy use of buildings followed
3. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
by embodied energy (1020%), whereas demolition and other pro-
cess energy has negligible or little share. Since operating energy
LCA is a process whereby the material and energy ows of a sys-
of the buildings has largest share in life cycle energy distribution,
tem are quantied and evaluated. Typically, upstream (extraction,
reducing it appears to be the most important aspect for the design
production, transportation and construction), use, and downstream
of buildings which demand less energy throughout their life cycle.
(deconstruction and disposal) ows of a product or service sys-
Embodied energy should then be addressed in second instance. In
tem are inventoried rst. Subsequently, global and/or regional
order to reduce operational energy demand of the buildings, pas-
impacts (e.g. global warming, ozone depletion, eutrophication and
sive and active measures such as providing higher insulation on
acidication) are calculated; based on energy consumption, waste
external walls and roof, using gas lled multiple pane windows
generation, etc. LCA allows for an evaluation of impacts of different
with low emissivity (LE) coatings, ventilation air heat recovery
processes and life cycle stages on the environment.
from exhaust air, heat pumps coupled with air or ground/water
As per international organisation for standardisation [2], LCA
heat sources, solar thermal collectors and building integrated solar
studies generally consist of four phases: goal and scope denition,
photovoltaic panels, etc. were examined in life cycle perspective by
life cycle inventory (LCI), impact assessment and interpretation
many researchers. Mithraratne and Vale [13] recommended provi-
of results. The goal and scope denes the purposes, audiences,
sion of higher insulation to a timber framed house situated in New
and system boundaries. The LCI involves data collection and cal-
Zealand as an energy saving strategy. Different versions of the same
culations to quantify material and energy inputs and outputs of a
building with varying active and passive measures were also anal-
system, and the impact assessment evaluates the signicance of
ysed [1416]. It is observed that reductions in life cycle energy of
potential environmental impacts based on the LCI.
the buildings over their conventional ones are proportional to the
In other industrial sectors, life cycle analysis is currently widely
degree and number of energy saving measures used in the build-
used to assess the life cycle environmental impact of products. In
ing. Conventional building refers to a building built according to the
order to use LCA methods to assess the environmental impact, it is
common practice of a specic country. However, reduced demand
necessary to perform an inventory analysis. However, in the con-
for operating and life cycle energy is achieved by a little increase
struction industry, the materials used in construction, operation,
in embodied energy of the building due to the energy intensive
and demolition are varied and the range of environmental cri-
materials used in technical and other installations. Thormark [17]
teria that are relevant to buildings is potentially enormous. This
reported that embodied energy and its share in the life cycle energy
may serve as a severe limitation to the use of LCA methods in
for low energy building is higher than conventional ones.
the building industry. Modern day buildings are typically large-
Though embodied energy constitutes only 1020% to life cycle
scale projects utilizing different kinds of building materials, so
energy, opportunity for its reduction should not be ignored. There
their constructions have a great impact on many other indus-
is a potential for reducing embodied energy requirements through
trial sectors. Building materials production processes are much
use of materials in the construction that requires less energy during
less standardized than most manufactured goods because of the
manufacturing [18]. While using low energy materials, attention
unique character of each building. There is limited quantitative
must be focussed on their thermal properties and longevity as
information about the environmental impacts of the produc-
they have impact on energy use in other phases of a buildings life
tion and manufacturing of construction materials, or the actual
cycle. Oka et al. [19] quantied energy consumption and environ-
process of construction and demolition. All these factors make
mental pollution caused by construction in Japan. Buchanan and
environmental assessments of the building industry a challenging
Honey [20] made a detailed study on embodied energy of build-
task.
ings and resulting carbon dioxide emissions with wood, concrete,
and steel structures for ofce and residential purposes in New
4. Literature review Zealand and concluded that wood constructions have less embod-
ied energy than concrete and steel structures. Venkatarama Reddy
Buildings consume energy directly or indirectly in all phases and Jagadish [21] estimated the embodied energy of residential
of their life cycle right from the cradle to the grave and there is buildings using different construction techniques and low energy
interplay between phases of energy use (embodied and operating materials and obtained 3045% reduction in embodied energy.
energy). Hence, they need to be analysed from life cycle point of Shukla et al. [22] evaluated embodied energy of an adobe house
view. Bekker [3] highlighted that in the building sector a life cycle in Indian context. The house was constructed using low energy
approach is an appropriate method for analysis of energy and use of intensive materials like soil, sand, cow dung, etc. For the adobe
other natural resources as well as the impact on the environment. house [22], about 50% reduction in embodied energy was observed
T. Ramesh et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 15921600 1595

Table 1
Data sources for life cycle analysis.

Life cycle phase Activity Possible sources of data

(a) Manufacturing phase Building material Production Manufacturing energy data of the building materials
from literature, economic input and output tables,
process analysis, hybrid analysis. Quantities estimated
from building drawings, bill of materials and from
interviews with building designer, contractor/owner
Transport Average distances for material transport. Energy data
for transport operations
Building construction including refurbishment Energy use from site visit

(b) Use phase Use of electricity and fuels for heating, sanitary water and lighting Simulation software-ENERGY-PLUS, VISUAL DOE,
E-QUEST, DESIGN BUILDER, ENORM, TRNSYS,
ECOTECT, SUNCODE, etc., annual electricity bills, house
hold survey on energy use. Inventory data for fuel
production. Electricity mix data

(c) Demolition phase Building demolition Demolition operations and quantities from specic
measured data. Use of equipment and explosives from
data base
Transport Average distances for material transport energy data
for transport operations
Recycling Specic measured data

(d) Life cycle energy Total energy use of the building in its life cycle Phase a + b + c

(e) Life cycle assessment Life cycle material and energy ow estimation Phase a + b + c
Impact assessment that building makes on the environment Greenhouse effect or global warming, ozone depletion,
acidication, eutrophication, photochemical smog, etc.
estimated using software SIMAPRO, ECOBAT, LEGEP,
BEES, ATHENA, etc.

compared to a conventional concrete house. This reduction was the impact indicators are greater for the wood house than for
achieved due to the use of low energy intensive and locally available the ICF house. Xing et al. [31] presented the life cycle assessment
materials (e.g. soil, sand, cow dung, etc.) compared to burnt clay of ofce buildings constructed in China using steel and concrete.
bricks, concrete, cement, etc., in the concrete house. Another oppor- They observed that embodied energy and environmental emis-
tunity for reducing embodied energy is through use of recycling sions of steel framed building was superior to the concrete framed
materials in the construction. Thormark [23] studied two cases: one. However, energy use and associated emissions were larger
(i) the building which was built with a large proportion of reused for steel framed building due to the higher thermal conductivity
materials and components; (ii) the building in which all materials of steel than concrete. As a result life cycle energy consumption
and components had been new. The results showed that about 55% and environmental emissions of steel framed building were slightly
of energy could be saved with reused materials and components. higher.
Thus, it can be observed from the reported results that buildings From the LCA studies of the buildings presented in the litera-
can be made to demand low energy in their life cycle with passive ture it can be concluded that impacts on the environment correlate
and active measures as well as using low energy materials in the closely with primary energy demand of the buildings in their life
construction. Low energy buildings become sustainable construc- cycle.
tions, provided most of its energy use for operation (electricity) is
derived largely from renewable or low CO2 resources [24]. In order
to directly address a set of specic environmental loads caused by 5. Methodology
buildings and their operation, researchers have increased the scope
of analysis beyond pure energy accounting and applied a full life A literature survey on buildings life cycle energy use was per-
cycle assessment analysis in their studies [2528]. Environmental formed resulting in 73 case studies from 13 countries. Survey
impacts like global warming potential, acidication potential, and included both ofce and residential buildings. An attempt is made
photo-oxidant formation potential are considered in these studies. in this paper to nd the normal range of life cycle energy values
Seo and Hwang [29] examined and estimated CO2 emissions in the (energy indicative gures) for conventional ofce and residential
entire life cycle of buildings. buildings and to distinguish low energy buildings from conven-
From these studies, it may be observed that the impact of differ- tional ones based on the life cycle energy use. Data is collected for
ent phases of the building on environment is similar to energy share wood, steel, concrete and other structured buildings. Progressive
of these phases in the life cycle energy of the buildings. LCA is much numbers were assigned for case studies according to their source
dependent on the primary sources of the energy of a particular and they are presented graphically by their number. Case study
place and conversion efciency of materials production processes. no. 146 is assigned for residential buildings and 4773 for ofce
If energy source is changed from fossil to renewable, environmental buildings. Exclusive embodied energy cases were exempted from
impact drastically changes. Also, it can be seen that the renewable the analysis as they were not holistic in building energy evaluation
sources of energy have less impact on the environment. process. Similarly, life cycle assessment case studies in which data
There are also comparative life cycle assessment studies in the on life cycle energy use of the buildings was not available were
open literature; Marceau and VanGeem [30] presented life cycle also exempted. Different versions of the same building presented
assessment of a single-family house modelled with two types of in source were also considered as case studies.
exterior walls: wood framed and insulating concrete form (ICF). An overview of case studies found in literature is presented in
The house was modelled in ve cities of different climates in US. Table 2. In some of the literature, data were presented in tables
The results showed that in almost all cases, for a given climate, in text form; while in others through graphs. In the latter case,
1596 T. Ramesh et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 15921600

Table 2
Overview of literature, general information.

Reference Case study no. Country Embodied Life cycle Life cycle Type of Data
energy only energy assessment building

Adalberth [14] 113 Sweden Res T

Adalberth [5] 1416 Sweden Res T

Adalberth et al. [28] 1720 Sweden Res G

Asif et al. [1] Scotland Res

Buchanan and Honey [20] New Zealand Off

Citherlet and Defaux [15] 2628 Switzerland Res G

Cole and Kernan [11] 5970 Canada Off T

Fay et al. [8] 3637 Australia Res T

Junnila et al. [26] 4748 US and Europe Off T

Kofoworola and Gheewala [12] 73 Thailand Off T

Kofoworola and Gheewala [25] Thailand Off

Medgar and VanGeem [30] US Res G

Mithraratne and Vale [13] 3234 New Zealand Res G, T

Oka et al. [19] Japan Off T

Peuportier [27] France Res

Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish [21] India Res

Sartori and Hestnes [32] 4146 Germany Res G

Shukla et al. [22] 31 India Res T

Suzuki and Oka [10] 4958 Japan CO2 Off G

Thormark [17] 38 Sweden Res T

Treloar et al. [7] 35 Australia Res T

Utama and Gheewala [9] 3940 Indonesia Res T

Winther and Hestnes [16] 2125 Norway Res G, T

Xing et al. [31] 7172 China Off T

Zimmermann et al. [24] 2930 Switzerland Res T

Res: residential; Off: ofce; G: graph; T: table and/or text.

numerical values have been read from the graphs, thus they might operating energy and life cycle energy of the buildings is almost lin-
be subjected to slight imprecision. The form of energy presented ear despite climatic and other differences. Life cycle energy of case
in case studies was either end use or primary. End use energy is study no. 3537 in Refs. [7,8] is higher for that particular operating
the energy measured at nal use level. It is also called as deliv- energy due to the wider system boundaries adopted in evaluat-
ered energy. Primary energy is the energy used to produce the end ing buildings embodied energy. This is due to the fact that energy
use energy, including extraction, transformation and distribution content of appliances, roads and footpaths, boundary walls, land
losses. Concerning operating energy of residential buildings, some scaping, etc. is included in the buildings embodied energy which
sources expressed it as primary, others as end use. In case of embod- was out of the scope in other studies. There is also a clear distinction
ied energy, no clear statement about primary/end-use was found. between the life cycle energy use of residential and ofce buildings
It was assumed that data were expressed as primary energy, as due to the higher embodied and operating energy of ofce build-
this is the common practice in LCA analysis of products according ings as compared to residential ones. It may be attributed to the fact
to Sartori and Hestnes [32]. The form of energy used for construc- that ofce buildings are generally multi-storey concrete or steel
tion, demolition and transportation is also considered as primary structures, requiring high embodied energy than wood structures
energy. of residential buildings. Operating energy is also more due to high
In order to present life cycle energy of the buildings in pri- occupancy, requiring more energy to maintain comfort conditions
mary units, operating energy in end-use of case studies in Refs.
[5,12,14,28] from Sweden, and Thailand has been converted into
primary units using approximate conversion factors. Based on the
information in Refs. [17,25] about sources of electricity in above
countries, it is considered that electricity (indigenous/imported)
derived mostly from thermal sources (>75%) is used in the above
case studies. Country specic data for oil and gas is difcult to obtain
as the oil/gas industry is international in character controlled by
multinational companies. In view of the above, a conversion factor
of 3.4 for electricity and 1.4 for oil/gas is used as reported in Ref.
[8], a case study from Australia, where majority of electricity (more
than 75%) comes from thermal sources.

6. Results and discussions

Life cycle energy, operating and embodied energy use of res-


idential and ofce buildings were calculated and normalised to
kWh/m2 per year to neutralize the differences in building parame-
ters like oor area and life span and are shown in Tables A.1 and B.1
in Appendix A.
Fig. 2 depicts the relation between life cycle energy and operat-
ing energy for 73 cases. It can be seen that the relationship between Fig. 2. Relation between operating and life cycle energy for 73 cases.
T. Ramesh et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 15921600 1597

Fig. 5. Interplay between operating and embodied energy for case studies [16].
Fig. 3. Normalized life cycle energy for conventional residential buildings (primary).

energy use for conventional residential buildings is falling in the


inside the building. In addition to this, electrical energy required for range of 150400 kWh/m2 per year and that of ofce buildings in
lighting and to power appliances is also large because they exist the range of 250550 kWh/m2 per year.
in large numbers compared to residential houses. All these fac- Wide variation in the life cycle energy use of residential as well
tors contribute to higher life cycle energy of the ofce buildings as ofce buildings is mainly due to the differences in climatic con-
as compared to residential ones. ditions of the places where these buildings are located. Moreover,
Further, it can also be observed from Fig. 2 that life cycle and as operating energy is expressed in primary energy terms, energy
operating energy of case study no.73 from Thailand [12], is falling conversion factors from end use to primary (particularly in case
quite away from other case studies from cold countries. This is due of electricity) also have role in this variation. Countries which have
to the fact that in tropical and developing countries like Thailand, clean sources of energy (hydro, wind, solar) have low energy gures
electricity derived mostly from fossil fuels is being used for all activ- than other countries with fossil fuel energy sources. Another reason
ities during operation phase, which when converted to primary for this variation, which may contribute a little, is energy content of
energy (using conversion factor 3.4) results in higher values. But, materials used in the building construction, which again depends
in case of cold countries, though they are using electricity for light- on energy carriers and efciency of processes of one country in
ing and other purposes, its share in operating phase is very small making building products.
as most of the energy is consumed in the form of oil/gas (conver-
sion factor 1.4) for space heating. Hence, they have lesser energy 6.1. Low energy buildings
gures during operation phase. This indicates that there is distinct
difference in energy use of buildings for cold and tropical countries; Low energy buildings are the buildings having specic design
hence, they need to be analysed separately. that demand less operating and life cycle energy than if built
Figs. 3 and 4 present bar chart showing the life cycle energy according to conventional criteria with parity of all other condi-
use of conventional residential and ofce buildings, respectively tions [32]. Design of low energy building is achieved by reducing
from cold countries. Wood, concrete and steel structured build- its operating energy through active and passive technologies. But,
ings are considered. Cases have been sorted in ascending order of reduction in operating energy is generally accompanied by little
their normalized life cycle energy. To x life cycle energy range, increase in embodied energy of the building due to energy intensive
lower and upper limits of energy use are rounded off to near- materials used in the energy saving measures (Fig. 5). Table 3 shows
est whole numbers allowing a little margin. Normalised life cycle the life cycle energy savings through operating energy reduction
by installing passive and active measures for the case studies men-
tioned in Refs. [1416]. It shows that life cycle energy savings are
in accordance with reduction in operating energy which in turn is
proportional to the degree and number of passive and active energy
saving measures used in the building. This indicates that one can
go on reducing energy use for operation of the building in order to
produce low energy buildings by increased use of passive and active
energy saving measures and at one stage operating energy can be
made zero and thus produce zero energy buildings (self-sufcient).
A zero energy building requires neither fuels nor electricity for its
operation as all the energy it needs is locally produced (utilizing
solar and wind sources) and stored.
Sartori and Hestnes [32] reviewed life cycle energy consump-
tion of conventional, low energy and zero energy buildings. Six
versions of the building (one conventional, four low energy, and
one self-sufcient) are analysed in German context. Results show
that life cycle energy of the self-sufcient building is more than
some of its low energy versions (Fig. 6). This is due to the fact
that, in case of low energy buildings, increase in embodied energy
Fig. 4. Normalized life cycle energy for conventional ofce buildings (primary). because of energy saving measures is little compared to decrease
1598 T. Ramesh et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 15921600

Table 3
Energy savings with active and passive measures over conventional constructions.

Case study no. Energy saving measures Reduction in operating energy % Life cycle energy saving% Reference
(passive and active)

7 Conventional. Adalberth [14]


8 Ventilation: mechanical supply 15 14
and exhaust system with plate
heat exchanger to recover heat.
Ventilation: mechanical supply 18
and exhaust system with plate
heat exchanger and windows:
single pane and a sealed argon
lled unit with low emission
coatings.
24 Conventional. Winther and Hestnes [16]
23 Exhaust air heat pump 21 19
preheats ventilation air and
hot water.
22 Solar collectors preheat hot 30 26
water and air heat recovery
unit efciency 70%.
25 Ground coil and heat pump 62 50
system for space and water
heating, PV system and air heat
recovery unit efciency 85%.
26 Conventional. Citherlet and Defaux [15]
27 Increased insulation on 20 16
facades, roof and slab, heat
pump coupled to ground, 55%
heat recovery from exhaust air.
28 Super insulation on facade, 54 49
roof and slab, 3 pane windows
with two low e-coatings, heat
pump coupled to ground, 55%
heat recovery from exhaust air,
solar thermal collectors for hot
water, PV panels to generate
half of the electricity required.

in its operating energy; hence, their life cycle energy comes down there is a limit to reduction in energy use for operation by energy
signicantly. But, in case of self-sufcient house, though its operat- intensive domestic engineering systems. But these studies did not
ing energy is zero, its embodied energy is so high that it exceeded tell how much the energy use for operation can be reduced before
life cycle energy of some of the low energy cases. This indicates that the embodied energy will be so high that the total energy use dur-
self-sufcient house is not the lowest life cycle energy consumer ing the life time will start to increase again. This limit varies from
among all versions of a building and there is a limit for life cycle one study to another and will not be unique even for particular
energy savings through reduction in operating energy by installing studies as it depends on the type and mix of active and passive
complex and energy intensive technical installations. measures used, climatic conditions of the place, and materials used
Similarly, in Ref. [16], author compared self-sufcient house in in the construction. This requires more detailed study. But, conclu-
Freiburg with energy use of the ve versions of the row houses at sion that can be drawn at this stage is that, carefully designed low
Hamar. Embodied energy of self-sufcient house was larger than energy buildings perform better than self-sufcient houses in life
highest energy user of ve versions. Author expressed a view that cycle context. Too many technical installations in order to make
building self-sufcient are not desirable.

7. Conclusions

The analysis of cases found in literature showed that life cycle


energy use of buildings depends on the operating (8090%) and
embodied (1020%) energy of the buildings. Normalised life cycle
energy use of conventional residential buildings falls in the range
of 150400 kWh/m2 per year (primary) and ofce buildings in the
range of 250550 kWh/m2 per year (primary). Buildings life cycle
energy demand can be reduced by reducing its operating energy
signicantly through use of passive and active technologies even
if it leads to a slight increase in embodied energy. However, an
excessive use of passive and active features in a building may be
counterproductive. It is further observed that low energy buildings
perform better than self-sufcient building in life cycle context.
Most of the case studies found in literature are from cold coun-
tries where oil/gas is used for larger part of the operation phase,
i.e., for space heating. However, in non-cold and developing coun-
Fig. 6. Life cycle versus embodied energy for case studies reviewed [32]. tries like India, Thailand, etc. electricity derived mostly from fossil
T. Ramesh et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 15921600 1599

fuels (coal) is being used in operation phase for space cooling, light- high compared to ofce buildings in cold countries. Hence, energy
ing, and other purposes. In addition, construction of buildings may indicative gures for non cold countries need to be evaluated sep-
involve usage of indigenous building materials and architectural arately.
techniques. Hence, a difference in the total life cycle energy of the
buildings in non-cold developing countries is expected. For exam- Appendix A.
ple, life cycle energy indicative gure for ofce building for Thailand
is coming around 850 kWh/m2 per year (primary). This is quite Tables A.1 and B.1

Table A.1
Energy data related to residential buildings in kWh/m2 per year (primary).

Case study no. Size (m2 ) Life span Principal structure Embodied Operating Life cycle Reference

1 1190 50 Wood 32 330 350 [14]


2 1190 50 Wood 33 323 344 [14]
3 1190 50 Wood 33 314 335 [14]
4 1190 50 Wood 33 323 344 [14]
5 1190 50 Wood 34 299 320 [14]
6 1190 50 Wood 33 296 318 [14]
7 1190 50 Wood 33 323 344 [14]
8 1190 50 Wood 33 274 295 [14]
9 700 50 Concrete 25 234 257 [14]
10 1160 50 Concrete 26 251 276 [14]
11 1190 50 Wood 33 322 343 [14]
12 1520 50 SCC 24 265 288 [14]
13 1190 50 Concrete 30 320 344 [14]
14 130 50 Wood 28 260 288 [5]
15 129 50 Wood 27 273 301 [5]
16 138 50 Wood 23 243 268 [5]
17 700 50 Concrete 27 234 261 [28]
18 1160 50 Concrete 24 251 276 [28]
19 1190 50 Wood 35 322 357 [28]
20 1520 50 SCC 22 265 288 [28]
21 110 50 Wood 14 151 165 [16]
22 110 50 Wood 13 119 132 [16]
23 110 50 Wood 12 133 145 [16]
24 110 50 Wood 9 169 178 [16]
25 110 50 Wood 25 65 90 [16]
26 266 50 Wood 27 188 215 [15]
27 266 50 Wood 31 151 182 [15]
28 266 50 Wood 25 86 111 [15]
29 N.A. 50 Wood 20 311 331 [24]
30 N.A. 50 Wood 28 309 337 [24]
31 100 40 Adobe 37 24 61 [22]
32 94 100 Wood 12 23 47 [13]
33 94 100 Concrete 13 21 45 [13]
34 94 100 Wood 14 12 33 [13]
35 123 30 Brick veneer 143 233 376 [7]
36 128 100 Brick veneer 101 267 368 [8]
37 128 100 Brick veneer 98 292 390 [8]
38 120 50 Wood 39 120 144 [17]
39 50 40 Clay 13 84 97 [9]
40 50 40 Cement 7 95 102 [9]
41 156 80 Wood 19 259 278 [32]
42 156 80 Wood 20 202 222 [32]
43 156 80 Wood 20 148 168 [32]
44 156 80 Wood 29 64 93 [32]
45 156 80 Wood 107 0 107 [32]
46 156 80 Wood 22 49 71 [32]

SCC: steel column and concrete; N.A.: national average.

Table B.1
Energy data related to ofce buildings in kWh/m2 per year (primary).

Case study no. Size (m2 ) Life span Principal structure Embodied Operating Life cycle Reference

47 4400 50 SRC 40 261 301 [26]


48 4400 50 SRC 73 376 453 [26]
49 1879 40 RC 56 313 382 [10]
50 1404 40 RC 69 299 368 [10]
51 1857 40 RC 69 236 306 [10]
52 1340 40 RC 83 285 368 [10]
53 1328 40 RC 111 340 451 [10]
54 1253 40 RC 83 444 528 [10]
55 1291 40 RC/S 125 326 451 [10]
1600 T. Ramesh et al. / Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 15921600

Table B.1 (Continued )

Case study no. Size (m2 ) Life span Principal structure Embodied Operating Life cycle Reference

56 1358 40 RC/S 139 333 472 [10]


57 8458 40 SRC 90 257 347 [10]
58 22,982 40 Steel 69 389 472 [10]
59 4620 50 Wood 60 292 352 [11]
60 4620 50 Steel 65 292 357 [11]
61 4620 50 Concrete 62 292 354 [11]
62 4620 50 Wood 59 266 325 [11]
63 4620 50 Steel 64 266 330 [11]
64 4620 50 Concrete 60 261 320 [11]
65 4620 50 Wood 60 489 550 [11]
66 4620 50 Steel 65 489 554 [11]
67 4620 50 Concrete 62 489 552 [11]
68 4620 50 Wood 59 454 513 [11]
69 4620 50 Steel 64 454 518 [11]
70 4620 50 Concrete 61 454 515 [11]
71 46,240 50 Steel 33 249 282 [31]
72 34,620 50 Concrete 44 218 262 [31]
73 60,000 50 Concrete 38 812 850 [12]

SRC: steel reinforced concrete; RC: reinforced concrete; RC/S: reinforced concrete/steel.

References [18] Y.G. Yohanis, B. Norton, Including embodied energy considerations at the con-
ceptual stage of building design, Power and Energy 220 (3) (2006) 271288.
[1] M. Asif, T. Muneer, R. Kelley, Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling [19] T. Oka, M. Suzuki, T. Konnya, The estimation of energy consumption and amount
home in Scotland, Building and Environment 42 (2007) 13911394. of pollutants due to the construction of buildings, Energy and Buildings 19
[2] ISO, ISO 14040, Environmental ManagementLife Cycle Assessment (1993) 303311.
Principles and Framework, International Organization for Standardization, [20] A.H. Buchanan, B.G. Honey, Energy and carbon dioxide implications of building
1997. construction, Energy and Buildings 20 (1994) 205217.
[3] P.C.F. Bekker, A life cycle approach in building, Building and Environment 17 [21] B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, K.S. Jagadish, Embodied energy of common and alter-
(1) (1982) 5561. native building materials and technologies, Energy and Buildings 35 (2003)
[4] K. Adalberth, Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: a method, Building 129137.
and Environment 32 (4) (1997) 317320. [22] A. Shukla, G.N. Tiwari, M.S. Sodha, Embodied energy analysis of adobe house,
[5] K. Adalberth, Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings: exam- Renewable Energy 34 (2009) 755761.
ples, Building and Environment 32 (4) (1997) 321329. [23] C. Thormark, Environmental analysis of a building with reused building mate-
[6] A. Utama, S.H. Gheewala, Indonesian residential high rise buildings: a life cycle rials, International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings 1 (2000)
energy assessment, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 12631268. 118.
[7] G. Treloar, R. Fay, P.E.D. Love, U. Iyer-Raniga, Analysing the life-cycle energy [24] M. Zimmermann, H.-J. Althaus, A. Haas, Benchmarks for sustainable construc-
of an Australian residential building and its householders, Building Research & tion a contribution to develop a standard, Energy and Buildings 37 (2005)
Information 28 (3) (2000) 184195. 11471157.
[8] R. Fay, G. Treloar, U. Iyer-Raniga, Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case [25] O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala, Environmental life cycle assessment of a
study, Building Research & Information 28 (1) (2000) 3141. commercial ofce building in Thailand, International Journal of Life cycle
[9] A. Utama, S.H. Gheewala, Life cycle energy of single landed houses in Indonesia, Assessment (2008).
Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 19111916. [26] S. Junnila, A. Horvath, A.A. Guggemos, Life-cycle assessment of ofce build-
[10] M. Suzuki, T. Oka, Estimation of life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission ings in Europe and the United States, Journal of Infrastructure Systems (2006)
of ofce buildings in Japan, Energy and Buildings 28 (1998) 3341. 1017.
[11] R.J. Cole, P.C. Kernan, Life-cycle energy use in ofce buildings, Building and [27] B.L.P. Peuportier, Life cycle assessment applied to the comparative evaluation
Environment 31 (4) (1996) 307317. of single family houses in the French context, Energy and Buildings 33 (2001)
[12] O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala, Life cycle energy assessment of a typical ofce 443450.
building in Thailand, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 10761083. [28] K. Adalberth, A. Almgren, E.H. Petersen, Life cycle assessment of four multi-
[13] N. Mithraratne, B. Vale, Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses, family buildings, International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings
Building and Environment 39 (2004) 483492. 2 (2001) 121.
[14] K. Adalberth, Energy use in four multi-family houses during their life cycle, [29] S. Seo, Y. Hwang, Estimation of CO2 emissions in life cycle of residential build-
International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings 1 (1999) 120. ings, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 127 (5) (2001)
[15] S. Citherlet, T. Defaux, Energy and environmental comparison of three variants 414418.
of a family house during its whole life span, Building and Environment 42 (2007) [30] M.L. Marceau, M.G. VanGeem, Comparison of the life cycle assessments of an
591598. insulating concrete form house and a wood frame house, Journal of ASTM
[16] B.N. Winther, A.G. Hestnes, Solar versus green: the analysis of a Norwegian Row International 3 (9) (2006) 111.
House, Solar Energy 66 (6) (1999) 387393. [31] S. Xing, Z. Xu, G. Jun, Inventory analysis of LCA on steel- and concrete-
[17] C. Thormark, A low energy building in a life cycleits embodied energy, energy construction ofce buildings, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 11881193.
need for operation and recycling potential, Building and Environment 37 (2002) [32] I. Sartori, A.G. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-
429435. energy buildings: a review article, Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 249257.

Você também pode gostar