Skip to main content
Log in

Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Publisher's Erratum to this article was published on 23 January 2013

Abstract

Purpose

This paper uses a dynamic life cycle assessment (DLCA) approach and illustrates the potential importance of the method using a simplified case study of an institutional building. Previous life cycle assessment (LCA) studies have consistently found that energy consumption in the use phase of a building is dominant in most environmental impact categories. Due to the long life span of buildings and potential for changes in usage patterns over time, a shift toward DLCA has been suggested.

Methods

We define DLCA 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. A simplified mathematical model is used to incorporate dynamic information from the case study building, temporally explicit sources of life cycle inventory data and temporally explicit life cycle impact assessment characterization factors, where available. The DLCA model was evaluated for the historical and projected future environmental impacts of an existing institutional building, with additional scenario development for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of future impacts.

Results and discussion

Results showed that overall life cycle impacts varied greatly in some categories when compared to static LCA results, generated from the temporal perspective of either the building's initial construction or its recent renovation. From the initial construction perspective, impacts in categories related to criteria air pollutants were reduced by more than 50 % when compared to a static LCA, even though nonrenewable energy use increased by 15 %. Pollution controls were a major reason for these reductions. In the future scenario analysis, the baseline DLCA scenario showed a decrease in all impact categories compared with the static LCA. The outer bounds of the sensitivity analysis varied from slightly higher to strongly lower than the static results, indicating the general robustness of the decline across the scenarios.

Conclusions

These findings support the use of dynamic modeling in life cycle assessment to increase the relevance of results. In some cases, decision making related to building design and operations may be affected by considering the interaction of temporally explicit information in multiple steps of the LCA. The DLCA results suggest that in some cases, changes during a building's lifetime can influence the LCA results to a greater degree than the material and construction phases. Adapting LCA to a more dynamic approach may increase the usefulness of the method in assessing the performance of buildings and other complex systems in the built environment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACHD (2011) Air quality annual report for 2010 with 1990–2010 trends, 2011, Allegheny County Health Department, Air Quality Program: Pittsburgh, PA

  • Aktas CB, Bilec MM (2011) Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results. Int J Life Cycle Assess. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0363-x

  • Bare J et al (2003) TRACI: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol Environ Policy 13(5):687–696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DRA (Deeter and Richey Architects) (1965) Drawings for construction of School of Engineering Building, University of Pittsburgh. General State Authority of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

  • Edge (Edge Studio Architects) (2007) Drawings for construction of Benedum Hall: upgrade and deferred maintenance for buildings and systems. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

  • Edge (Edge Studio Architects) (2008) Drawings for construction of Benedum Hall: MSI Addition And Renovations. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

  • Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9(3):161–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field F, Kirchain R, Clark J (2000) Life-cycle assessment and temporal distributions of emissions: developing a fleet-based analysis. J Ind Ecol 4(2):71–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Rebitzer G (2005) The ecoinvent database system: a comprehensive web-based LCA database. J Clean Prod 13(13–14):1337–1343

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijungs R, Suh S (2002) The computational structure of life cycle assessment. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellweg S, Frischknecht R (2004) Evaluation of long-term impacts in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 9(5):339–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellweg S, Hofstetter TB, Hungerbühler K (2003) Discounting and the environment: should current impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming future generations? Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(1):8–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch JJaA (2010) The eQUEST Quick Energy Simulation Model, version 3.64

  • Huijbregts MAJ (1998) Application of uncertainty and variability in LCA. Part I: a general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(5):273–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Norris G, Bretz R, Ciroth A, Maurice B, Von Bahr B, Weidema B, De Beaufort ASH (2001) Framework for modelling data uncertainty in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Assess 6(3):127–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humbert S, Manneh R et al (2009) Assessing regional intake fractions in North America. Sci Total Environ 407(17):4812–4820

    Google Scholar 

  • Junnila S, Horvath A, Guggemos AA (2006) Life-cycle assessment of office buildings in Europe and the United States. J Infrastruct Syst 12(1):10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall A, Chang B, Sharpe B (2009) Accounting for time-dependent effects in biofuel life cycle greenhouse gas emissions calculations. Environ Sci Technol 43:7142–7147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall A, Price L (2012) Incorporating time-corrected life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in vehicle regulations. Environ Sci Technol 46(5):2557–2563

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall A (2012) Time-adjusted global warming potentials for LCA and carbon footprints. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(18):1042–1049

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kofoworola OF, Gheewala SH (2008) Environmental life cycle assessment of a commercial office building in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(6):498–511

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levasseur A, Lesage P, Margni M, Deschěnes L, Samson R (2010) Considering time in LCA: dynamic LCA and its application to global warming impact assessments. Environ Sci Technol 44(8):3169–3174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Levine SH, Gloria TP, Romanoff E (2007) A dynamic model for determining the temporal distribution of environmental burden. J Ind Ecol 11(4):39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutel CL, Hellweg S (2008) Regionalized life cycle assessment: computational methodology and application to inventory databases. Environ Sci Technol 43(15):5797–5803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris GA (2003) Impact characterization in the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts: methods for acidification, eutrophication, and ozone formation. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):79–101

    Google Scholar 

  • NREL (2010) U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. http://www.nrel.gov/lci/. Accessed 10 Jul 2011

  • Pehnt M (2006) Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renew Energ 31(1):55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reap J, Bras B, Newcomb PJ, Carmichael C (2003) Improving life cycle assessment by including spatial, dynamic and place-based modeling. In, Chicago, IL, 2003. 2003 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, pp 77–83

  • Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. Part 2: impact assessment and interpretation. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(5):374–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ries R (2003) Uncertainty in environmental assessment for the built environment. In: Molenaar KR, Chinowsky PS (eds) Honolulu, HI., 2003. Construction Research Congress, Winds of Change: Integration and Innovation in Construction, Proceedings of the Congress, pp 411–419

  • Scheuer C, Keoelian G, Reppe P (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energy Build 35:1049–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seppälä J, Posch M, Johansson M, Hettelingh JP (2006) Country-dependent characterisation factors for acidification and terrestrial eutrophication based on accumulated exceedance as an impact category indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(6):403–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah VP, Ries RJ (2009) A characterization model with spatial and temporal resolution for life cycle impact assessment of photochemical precursors in the United States. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(4):313–327

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stasinopoulos P, Compston P, Newell B, Jones HM (2011) A system dynamics approach in LCA to account for temporal effects—a consequential energy LCI of car body-in-whites. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(2):199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struijs J, Van Dijk A, Slaper H, Van Wijnen HJ, Velders GJM, Chaplin G, Huijbregts MAJ (2010) Spatial- and time-explicit human damage modeling of ozone depleting substances in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Sci Technol 44(1):204–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes HA, Heijungs R, Suh S, Huppes G (2004) Three strategies to overcome the limitations of life-cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 8(3):19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDOE (2009) 2009 Buildings Energy Data Book. http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/docs/DataBooks/2009_BEDB_Updated.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2011

  • USDOE (2010a) Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Main Reference Case Tables. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2011

  • USDOE (2010b) Electric Power Annual 2009—State Data Tables. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/. Accessed 10 Jul 2011

  • USEPA (2009) National air pollutant emission trends, 1900–1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/index.html. Accessed 10 Jul 2011

  • USEPA (2010) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2008. Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html. Accessed 10 Jul 201

  • USEPA (2011a) Regulatory impact analysis of the proposed toxics rule: final Report. http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/ToxicsRuleRIA.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2011

  • USEPA (2011b) Technology transfer network: clearinghouse for inventories and emissions factors. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. Accessed 10 Jul 2011

  • Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, et al (2007) Time horizon dependent characterization factors for acidification in life-cycle assessment based on forest plant species occurrence in Europe. Environ Sci Technol 41(3):922–927

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber C, Jaramillo P, Marriott J, Samaras C (2010) Life cycle assessment and grid electricity: what do we know and what can we know? Environ Sci Technol 44:1895–1901

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu HJ, Yuan ZW, Zhang L, Bi J (2011) Life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of an office building in China. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(2):105–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JE, Sachs A (1994) Worldwatch paper #121: the next efficiency revolution: creating a sustainable materials economy. Worldwatch Institute, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhai P, Williams ED (2010) Dynamic hybrid life cycle assessment of energy and carbon of multicrystalline silicon photovoltaic systems. Environ Sci Technol 44(20):7950–7955

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under EFRI-SEED Grant #1038139 and the Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation at the University of Pittsburgh and by EPA STAR Graduate Fellowship FP917321.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa M. Bilec.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Holger Wallbaum

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 1656 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Collinge, W.O., Landis, A.E., Jones, A.K. et al. Dynamic life cycle assessment: framework and application to an institutional building. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 538–552 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0528-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0528-2

Keywords

Navigation