Preliminary Study on the GWP Benchmark of Office Buildings in Poland Using the LCA Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Energy Demand in the Operational Phase
2.2. Emission Level throughout a Building’s Life Cycle
2.2.1. Goal and Scope Definition
Aim of the Analysis
System Boundaries
2.2.2. Life-Cycle Inventory
Material Production Phase A1–A3
Construction Phase A4–A5
- A concrete mixer with a capacity of 8 m3 and 100% filling for concrete transportation;
- A truck with a 40-ton capacity and a 100% fill rate for transportation of large-scale and large-volume materials, e.g., reinforcing steel, concrete blocks, insulation, glass facade modules, and insulation;
- A dumper truck with a capacity of 19 tons with a 100% fill rate for transportation of loose materials, e.g., gravel, sand, and soil substrate.
Material Service Lifetime (B4–B5)
Operational Energy and Water Use (B6–B7)
2.3. Benchmark Procedure
2.4. Assumptions and Simplifications
- The accuracy of the material specifications: This uncertainty should not be significant as the environmental impact of all selected materials and products was calculated according to the same methodology. Moreover, if a local manufacturer was not available in the database, the GWP index was compensated with the local Polish energy mix;
- General scenarios were applied for the construction phase, end of life phase, and stage D. Transport distances were based on the typical average European transport distances, assuming the vehicles were filled with 100% cargo materials. However, as the construction and end-of-life stage were proven to have minor influences on the final environmental impact in the building total life cycle, the accuracy of the assumed simplifications was defined as satisfactory;
- Results were normalized to the usable floor area. This assumption might have resulted in a minor under or overestimation of the normalised GWP index as buildings are characterised by different underground level areas.
3. Description of the Building Database
3.1. General Information
3.2. Building Materials
3.3. Description of HVAC Systems
4. Results and Analysis
4.1. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
4.2. Defining the Benchmark
5. Discussion and Future Work
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Janssens-Maenhout, G.; Crippa, M.; Guizzardi, D.; Muntean, M.; Schaaf, E.; Dentener, F.; Bergamaschi, P.; Pagliari, V.; Olivier, J.G.J.; Peters, J.A.H.W.; et al. Fossil CO2 & GHG Emissions of All World Countries; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- European Community (EC). Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the Energy Performance of Buildings; European Community (EC): Brussels, Belgium, 2003; pp. 65–71. [Google Scholar]
- European Community (EC). Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast); European Community (EC): Brussels, Belgium, 2010; pp. 13–35. [Google Scholar]
- European Community (EC). Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 Amending Directive 2010/31/EU on the Energy Performance of Buildings and Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency; European Community (EC): Brussels, Belgium, 2018; pp. 75–91. [Google Scholar]
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McDonough, W.; Braungart, M.; Anastas, P.T.; Zimmerman, J.B. Applying the principles of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 434A–441A. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Nuñez-Cacho, P.; Górecki, J.; Molina-Moreno, V.; Corpas-Iglesias, F.A. What gets measured, gets done: Development of a circular economy measurement scale for building industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Esa, M.R.; Halog, A.; Rigamonti, L. Developing strategies for managing construction and demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular economy. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2017, 19, 1144–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Górecki, J.; Núñez-Cacho, P.; Corpas-Iglesias, F.A.; Molina, V. How to convince players in construction market? Strategies for effective implementation of circular economy in construction sector. Cogent Eng. 2019, 6, 1690760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilgin, M.A.; Gupta, S.M. Environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery (ECMPRO): A review of the state of the art. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 563–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, M.K. Life cycle recurrent embodied energy calculation of buildings: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 731–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.; Ries, R.J.; Wang, Y. Life-cycle energy of residential buildings in china. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 656–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.; Ries, R.J.; Wang, Y. LCA modelling for Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in early stage planning. Build. Environ. 2019, 149, 379–389. [Google Scholar]
- Häkkinen, T. (Ed.) Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Calculation Method; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Meex, E.; Hollberg, A.; Knapen, E.; Hildebrand, L.; Verbeeck, G. Requirements for applying LCA-based environmental impact assessment tools in the early stages of building design. Build. Environ. 2018, 133, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zabalza, I.; Scarpellini, S.; Aranda, A.; Llera, E.; Jáñez, A. Use of LCA as a tool for building ecodesign. A case study of a low energy building in Spain. Energies 2013, 6, 3901–3921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Basbagill, J.; Flager, F.; Lepech, M.; Fischer, M. Application of life-cycle assessment to early stage building design for reduced embodied environmental impacts. Build. Environ. 2013, 60, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallhagen, M.; Glaumann, M.; Malmqvist, T. Basic building life cycle calculations to decrease contribution to climate change—Case study on an office building in Sweden. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1863–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azari, R. Integrated energy and environmental life cycle assessment of office building envelopes. Energy Build. 2014, 82, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blengini, G.A.; Carlo, T.D. The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komerska, A.; Kwiatkowski, J.; Rucińska, J. Integrated evaluation of CO2eq emission and thermal dynamic simulation for different façade solutions for a typical office building. Energy Procedia 2015, 78, 3216–3221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Su, X.; Zhang, X. Environmental performance optimization of window-wall ratio for different window type in hot summer and cold winter zone in China based on life cycle assessment. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristjansdottir, T.F.; Good, C.S.; Inman, M.R.; Schlanbusch, R.D.; Andresen, I. Embodied greenhouse gas emissions from PV systems in norwegian residential zero emission pilot buildings. Sol. Energy 2016, 133, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K.K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1592–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saade, M.R.M.; Guest, G.; Amor, B. Comparative whole building LCAs: How far are our expectations from the documented evidence? Build. Environ. 2020, 167, 106449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Georges, L.; Haase, M.; Houlihan, W.A.; Kristjansdottir, T.; Risholt, B. Life cycle emissions analysis of two nZEB concepts. Build. Res. Inf. 2015, 43, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlegl, F.; Gantner, J.; Traunspurger, R.; Albrecht, S.; Leistner, P. LCA of buildings in Germany: Proposal for a future benchmark based on existing databases. Energy Build. 2019, 194, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lasvaux, S.; Lebert, A.; Achim, F.; Grannec, F.; Hoxha, E.; Nibel, S.; Schiopu, N.; Chevalier, J. Towards guidance values for the environmental performance of buildings: Application to the statistical analysis of 40 low-energy single family houses’ LCA in France. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 22, 657–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passer, A.; Kreiner, H.; Maydl, P. Assessment of the environmental performance of buildings: A critical evaluation of the influence of technical building equipment on residential buildings. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 1116–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DesignBuilder, v. 4.7.0.027; Design Builder Software Manual; DesignBuilder Software Ltd: London, UK, 2016.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14040: Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO 14044—Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Khasreen, M.M.; Banfill, P.F.G.; Menzies, G.F. Life-cycle assessment and the environmental impact of buildings: A review. Sustainability 2009, 3, 674–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- One Click LCA Version: 14.12.2019, Database Version: 7.6; One stop Carbon and Life-cycle Metrics Software; Made for Construction; Bionova LTD: Helsinki, Finland, 2019.
- European Committee for Standardization. EN 15804 Sustainability of Construction Works. Environmental Product Declarations. Core Rules for the Product Category of Construction Products; European Committee for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- The Ministry of Infrastructure. Rozporządzenie Ministra Infrastruktury z dnia 14 stycznia 2002 r. w sprawie określenia przeciętnych norm zużycia wody (Dz. U. Nr 8, poz. 70) (Regulation on the determination of average water consumption standards of the Minister of Infrastructure of January 14, 2002); The Ministry of Infrastructure: Warsaw, Poland, 2002.
- Häkkinen, T. (Ed.) Sustainability and Performance Assessment and Benchmarking of Buildings; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland: Espoo, Finalnd, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- European Committee for Standardization. EN ISO 52003-1 EPB—Indicators, Requirements, Ratings and Certificates—Part 1: General Aspects and Application to the Overall Energy Performance; European Committee for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Do, H.; Cetin, K.S. Evaluation of the causes and impact of outliers on residential building energy use prediction using inverse modeling. Build. Environ. 2018, 138, 194–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Główny Urząd Statyczny. Główny Urząd Statystyczny Statistics Poland Analizy statystyczne; Główny Urząd Statyczny: Warsaw, Poland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Parameter | From 1st January 2009 | From 1st January 2014 | From 1st January 2017 |
---|---|---|---|
Thermal transmittance U-value [W/(m2K)] | |||
External walls | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.23 |
Roof | 0.25 | 0.20 | 0.18 |
Ceiling above the basement | 0.45 | 0.25 | 0.25 |
Windows | 1.8 | 1.3 | 1.1 |
Solar energy transmittance g-value [-] | 0.5 | 0.35 | 0.35 |
Primary energy demand indicator [kWh/(m2year)] | depending on the building shape ratio A/V 1 | 190 | 185 |
Goal | Life Cycle Analysis to Define a Benchmark Based on the Total GWP | |
---|---|---|
Functional equivalent | Building type | Office |
Structure | Concrete structure | |
Location | Poland | |
Finishing standard | Shell and core | |
Assumed reference building lifetime TLT (years) | 60 | |
Construction period | 2009–2019 | |
Functional unit | 1 m2 of usable floor area | |
Assessed impact categories | Global Warming Potential (GWP) | |
System boundary | Cradle to gate Building construction materials excluding technical equipment and furnishingsEnergy in operation stage excluding office equipment, elevators, and commuting energy | |
Calculation Software | One Click LCA© and 360optimi, Bionova [34] |
Area of Analysis | Data Sources and Assumptions |
---|---|
Material quantities (A1–A3) | Data inventory based on technical documentation provided in the Executive Design for Architecture and Structure. Material database: EPD, Ecoinvent, Okobau.dat, Bionova. Local material manufacturer data if possible. Otherwise, data of regional European average material were selected |
Building material transport distances (A4) | Transport distances were estimated based on the average European transport distance specific for each material type |
Construction and installation process (A5) | Average emissions for the construction process were based on the project size using a scenario provided in the calculation tool |
Material service lifetime (B4–B5) | The material service life was based on data related to the specific material or specific project values when available. Otherwise, default values from the One Click LCA database were applied |
Building use phase energy consumption (B6) | Energy consumption was based on energy simulations. For grid electricity and district heating, emissions were calculated according to the Polish energy mix |
Building use phase water consumption (B7) | Water consumption was estimated on the basis of the average water consumption for utility purposes and for watering green areas according to Polish legislation |
End-of-Life Stage (C1–C4) | Based on a scenario provided in the calculation tool |
Benefits and loads beyond the building life cycle (D) | Based on a scenario provided in the calculation tool |
Parameter | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | B6 | B7 | B8 | B9 | B10 | B11 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total area (incl. garage) [m2] | 25,639 | 39,349 | 10,251 | 23,913 | 11,337 | 14,969 | 67,672 | 37,598 | 20,011 | 28,336 | 25,667 |
Usable area [m2] | 17,962 | 24,324 | 5832 | 17,515 | 8541 | 12,093 | 51,270 | 31,122 | 13,285 | 15,750 | 18,542 |
Polish building requirements | 2017 | 2017 | 2017 | 2017 | 2017 | 2009 | 2014 | 2017 | 2017 | 2014 | 2014 |
Number of storeys (incl. garage) | 6 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 39 | 18 | 6 | 9 | 10 |
Number of aboveground storeys | 5 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 36 | 15 | 5 | 7 | 8 |
A/V | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.28 | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.18 |
WWR | 39.8% | 44.6% | 78.7% | 48.3% | 48.0% | 49.3% | 73.7% | 72.5% | 58.4% | 43.8% | 64.8% |
Climate zone winter | III | III | III | III | III | III | I | I | III | III | III |
Climate zone summer | II | II | II | II | II | II | II | II | II | II | II |
Parameter | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | B6 | B7 | B8 | B9 | B10 | B11 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Energy use demand indicator kWh/(m2year): | |||||||||||
• District heating | 18.5 | 25.2 | 20.9 | 19.3 | 0.0 | 37.3 | 32.4 | 11.2 | 18.8 | 12.9 | 0.0 |
• Gas | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 132.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.7 |
• Electricity | 62.5 | 61.7 | 61.9 | 78.2 | 71.1 | 88.4 | 70.2 | 80.3 | 48.3 | 52.1 | 73.3 |
Primary energy demand indicator kWh/(m2year) | 207 | 190 | 203 | 244 | 217 | 258 | 227 | 246 | 173 | 170 | 265 |
Building | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B5 | B6 | B7 | B8 | B9 | B10 | B11 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total number of assessed building elements | 15 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 10 | 9 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 10 |
External walls (envelope, structure, finishes) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
External windows and rooflights | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Foundations | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Internal floor finishes | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Structural frame (vertical) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Upper floors (including horizontal structure) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Basements/retaining walls | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
External solar shading devices | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N |
Ground/lowest floor | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Internal ceiling finishes | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Internal walls and partitions | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Roof (including coverings) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Stairs and ramps | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Balustrades and handrails | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Internal doors | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N |
Internal wall finishes | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Internal windows | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N | N |
Hard landscaping, roads, paths and paving | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | N |
Hard landscaping, fencing, railings, walls | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Heating Source | District Heating sub-Station | VRF | Gas Boiler | CHP |
Building Indicator | B1, B2, B3, B4, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10 | B1, B2, B3, B4, B8, B10, B11 | B5, B11 | B5 |
Cooling Source | Chillers | VRF | Split and Multi-Split Air Conditioners | Adsorption Chiller |
Building Indicator | B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11 | B1, B2, B3, B4, B8, B10, B11 | B5, B11 | B5 |
Building Class | GWP [kg CO2eq/m2TLT] | |
---|---|---|
A | ≤ | 1800 |
B | ≤ | 2500 |
C | ≤ | 3500 |
D | ≤ | 5000 |
E | ≤ | 7100 |
F | ≤ | 10,000 |
G | ≤ | 14,100 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rucińska, J.; Komerska, A.; Kwiatkowski, J. Preliminary Study on the GWP Benchmark of Office Buildings in Poland Using the LCA Approach. Energies 2020, 13, 3298. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13133298
Rucińska J, Komerska A, Kwiatkowski J. Preliminary Study on the GWP Benchmark of Office Buildings in Poland Using the LCA Approach. Energies. 2020; 13(13):3298. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13133298
Chicago/Turabian StyleRucińska, Joanna, Anna Komerska, and Jerzy Kwiatkowski. 2020. "Preliminary Study on the GWP Benchmark of Office Buildings in Poland Using the LCA Approach" Energies 13, no. 13: 3298. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13133298