Skip to main content

Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment volume 17, pages 337–349 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

Many life cycle assessment (LCA) studies do not adequately address the actual lifetime of buildings and building products, but rather assume a typical value. The goal of this study was to determine the impact of lifetime on residential building LCA results. Including accurate lifetime data into LCA allows a better understanding of a product’s environmental impact that would ultimately enhance the accuracy of LCA results.

Methods

This study focuses on refining the US residential building lifetime, as well as lifetime of interior renovation products that are commonly used as interior finishes in homes, to improve LCA results. Residential building lifetime data that presents existing trends in the USA was analyzed as part of the study. Existing product life cycle inventory data were synthesized to form statistical distributions that were used instead of deterministic values. Product elementary flows were used to calculate life cycle impacts of a residential model that was based on median US residential home size. Results were compared to existing residential building LCA literature to determine the impact of using updated, statistical lifetime data. A Monte Carlo analysis was performed for uncertainty analysis. Sensitivity analysis results were used to identify hotspots within the LCA results.

Results and discussion

Statistical analysis of US residential building lifetime data indicate that average building lifetime is 61 years and has a linearly increasing trend. Interior renovation energy consumption of the residential model that was developed by using average US conditions was found to have a mean of 220 GJ over the life cycle of the model. Ratio of interior renovation energy consumption to pre-use energy consumption, which includes embodied energy of materials, construction activities, and associated transportation was calculated to have a mean of 34% for regular homes and 22% for low-energy homes. Ratio of interior renovation to life cycle energy consumption of residential buildings was calculated to have a mean of 3.9% for regular homes and 7.6% for low-energy homes.

Conclusions

Choosing an arbitrary lifetime for buildings and interior finishes, or excluding interior renovation impacts introduces a noteworthy amount of error into residential building LCA, especially as the relative importance of materials use increases due to growing number of low-energy buildings that have lower-use phase impacts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

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

References

  • Adalberth K (1997a) Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: a method. Build Environ 32(4):317–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adalberth K (1997b) Energy use during the life cycle of single-unit dwellings: examples. Build Environ 32(4):321–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson T, Brandt E (1999) The use of performance and durability data in assessment of life time serviceability. In: Lacasse MA, Vanier DJ (eds) 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components (DBMC). NRC Research, Vancouver, Canada, pp 1813–1820

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J, Shiers DE, Sinclair M (2002) The green guide to specification: an environmental profiling system for building materials and components, 3rd edn. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang GKI, Wyatt DP (1999) Performance concept in the procurement of durability and serviceability of buildings. In: Lacasse MA, Vanier DJ (eds) 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components (DBMC). NRC Research, Vancouver, Canada, pp 1821–1832

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth A (1996) Estimating the life expectancies of building components in life-cycle costing calculations. Struct Surv 14(2):4–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (2003) G 172—Standard guide for statistical analysis of accelerated service life data. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • ASTM (2005) G 166—Standard guide for statistical analysis of service life data. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6(3–4):49–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Borjesson P, Gustavsson L (2000) Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy 28(9):575–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles G, Gow H (1995) Sinking funds for major repairs provision: some calculated examples. RICS Research: 139–144

  • BPS High Performance PC Broadloom Carpet. The Green Standard Environmental Product Declaration System. Bentley Prince Street, Industry, CA

  • Census (1997) 1997 AHS National Data, ASCII version. Department of Housing and Urban Development. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Census (1999) 1999 AHS National Data, ASCII version. Department of Housing and Urban Development. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Census (2001) 2001 AHS National Data, ASCII version. Department of Housing and Urban Development. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Census (2003) 2003 AHS National Data, ASCII version. Department of Housing and Urban Development. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Census (2005) 2005 AHS National Data, ASCII version. Department of Housing and Urban Development. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Census (2007) 2007 AHS National Data, ASCII version. Department of Housing and Urban Development. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Census (2009a) 2009 AHS National Data, ASCII version. Department of Housing and Urban Development. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Census (2009b) Table 1.1—Introductory characteristics. 2009 American Housing Survey. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Census (2009c) Table 2–3. Size of unit and lot—occupied units. 2009 American Housing Survey. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper JS (2003) Specifying functional units and reference flows for comparable alternatives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):337–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper T (2004) Inadequate life? Evidence of consumer attitudes to product obsolescence. J Consum Policy 27(4):421–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2009) 2009 Buildings energy data book. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy

  • EIA (2005) Table US1. Total energy consumption, expenditures, and intensities, 2005—Part 1: housing unit characteristics and energy usage indicators. 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey—detailed tables. US Energy Information Administration

  • Fay R, Treloar G, Iyer-Raniga U (2000) Life-cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case study. Build Res Inf 28(1):31–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez J (2006) Material architecture: emergent materials for innovative buildings and ecological construction. Architectural Press, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman A, Callis B (2008) Table 16—year building built. New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey. US Census Bureau, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorree M, Guinee JB, Huppes G, van Oers L (2002) Environmental life cycle assessment of linoleum. Int Life Cycle Assess 7(3):158–166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guequirre NMJ, Kristinsson J (1999) Product features that influence the end of a building. In: Lacasse MA, Vanier DJ (eds) 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components (DBMC). NRC Research Press, Vancouver, Canada, pp 2021–2032

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiltinan J (2009) Creative destruction and destructive creations: environmental ethics and planned pbsolescence. J Bus Ethics 89(1):19–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunther A, Langowski H-C (1997) Life cycle assessment study on resilient floor coverings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2(2):73–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hed G (1999) Service Life planning of building components. In: Lacasse MA, Vanier DJ (eds) 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components (DBMC). NRC Research Press, Vancouver, Canada, pp 1543–1551

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermans MH (1999) Building performance starts at hand-over: the importance of life span information. In: Lacasse MA, Vanier DJ (eds) 8th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components (DBMC). NRC Research Press, Vancouver, Canada, pp 1867–1873

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovde PJ, Moser K (2004) performance based methods for service life prediction—state of the art reports part A and part B. CIB W080/RILEM 175-SLM Service Life Methodologies Prediction of Service Life for Buildings and Components. International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB)

  • The Green Standard Environmental Product Declaration System Interface Convert Design Platform by Interface FLOR. Interface Inc., La Grange, GA

  • Itard L, Klunder G (2007) Comparing environmental impacts of renovated housing stock with new construction. Build Res Inf 35(3):252–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R, Kuby P (2003) Just the essentials of elementary statistics, 3rd edn. Thomson Learning Brooks, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson A (1999) Including the use phase in LCA of floor coverings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 4(6):321–328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson A, Tillman A-M, Svensson T (1997) Life cycle assessment of flooring materials: case study. Build Environ 32(3):245–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kececioglu D (1991) Reliability engineering handbook, vol. 1. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellenberger D, Althaus H-J (2009) Relevance of simplifications in LCA of building components. Build Environ 44(4):818–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly DJ (2007) BRE, Design life of buildings—a scoping study. Scottish Building Standards Agency, Glasgow

    Google Scholar 

  • Keoleian GA, Blanchard S, Reppe P (2001) Life-cycle energy, costs, and strategies for improving a single-family house. J Ind Ecol 4(2):135–156

    Article  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 

  • Lippiatt BC (2008) Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES). 4.0 edn. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

  • Lippke B, Wilson J, Perez-Garcia J, Bowyer J, Meil J (2004) CORRIM: life-cycle environmental performance of renewable building materials. For Prod J 54(6):8–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithraratne N, Vale B (2004) Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses. Build Environ 39(4):483–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassen J, Holmberg J, Wadeskog A, Nyman M (2007) Direct and indirect energy use and carbon emissions in the production phase of buildings: an input–output analysis. Energy 32(9):1593–1602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nebel B, Zimmer B, Wegener G (2006) Life cycle assessment of wood floor coverings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(3):172–182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • New York Housing Maintenance Code—subchapter 2: maintenance, services, and Utilities—article 3: painting. New York City, New York

  • Nicholson K (2009) Codebook for the American Housing Survey, Public Use File: 1997 and later. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fairfax, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoletti GM, Notarnicola B, Tassielli G (2002) Comparative life cycle assessment of flooring materials: ceramic versus marble tile. J Clean Prod 10(3):283–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor J (2004) Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings. In: Woodframe housing durability and disaster issues, Las Vegas, NV

  • Optis M, Wild P (2010) Inadequate documentation in published life cycle energy reports on buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(7):644–651

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2009) Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr Build Mater 23(1):28–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palisade (2009) Guide to Using @RISK—Risk Analysis and Simulation Add-In for Microsoft Excel, Version 5.5. Palisade Corporation, Ithaca, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmeri J (2010) A Life cycle approach to prioritizing methods of preventing waste from the residential construction sector in the state of Oregon, phase 2 report. Department of Environmental Quality, State of Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsen JH (2003) The maintenance of linoleum and PVC floor coverings in Sweden. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8(6):357–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen AK, Solberg B (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions and costs over the life cycle of wood and alternative flooring materials. Clim Chang 64(1–2):143–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Plat HT (1999) Optimisation of the life span of building components. In: Lacasse MA, Vanier DJ (eds) 8th International Conference on the Durability of Building Materials and Components. NRC Research Press, Vancouver, Canada, pp 2118–2125

    Google Scholar 

  • Potting J, Blok K (1995) Life cycle assessment of four types of floor covering. J Clean Prod 3(4):201–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pullen S (2000) Energy Assessment of Institutional Buildings. In: 34th Annual Conference of the Australia & New Zealand Architectural Science Association, Adelaide, Australia

  • Scharai-Rad M, Welling J (2002) Environmental and energy balances of wood products and substitutes. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer C, Keoleian GA, Reppe P (2003) Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications. Energy Build 35(10):1049–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiders D, Ahluwalia G, Melman S, Quint R, Chaluvadi A, Liang M, Silverberg A, Bechler C (2007) Study of life expectancy of home components. National Association of Home Builders, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharrard AL, Matthews HS, Ries RJ (2008) Estimating construction project environmental effects using an input–output-based hybrid life-cycle assessment model. J Infrastruct Syst 14(4):327–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SimaPro. 7.1 edn. (2010) Pre Consultants BV, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

  • Soratana K, Marriott J (2010) Increasing innovation in home energy efficiency: Monte Carlo simulation of potential improvements. Energy Build 42(6):828–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan MI (2007) Statistics: informed decisions using data, 2nd edn. New York, Pearson Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki M, Oka T (1998) Estimation of life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of office buildings in Japan. Energy Build 28(1):33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thormark C (2002) A low energy building in a life cycle—its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential. Build Environ 37(4):429–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Nunen H, Hendriks NA (2002) A solution to environmental pressure and housing convenience. In: 9th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components (DBMC), Brisbane, Australia 2002

  • Winistorfer P, Chen Z, Lippke B, Stevens N (2005) Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions related to the use, maintenance and disposal of a residential structure. Consortium on Research of Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM), Seattle, WA

    Google Scholar 

  • Winther BN, Hestnes AG (1999) Solar versus green: the analysis of a Norwegian row house. Sol Energy 66(6):387–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woller J (1996) The basics of Monte Carlo simulations. http://www.chem.unl.edu/zeng/joy/mclab/mcintro.html. Accessed 21 Dec 2010

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, 3700 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Can B. Aktas

  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mascaro Center for Sustainable Innovation, University of Pittsburgh, 3700 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Melissa M. Bilec

Authors
  1. Can B. Aktas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa M. Bilec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Can B. Aktas.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Andreas Ciroth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aktas, C.B., Bilec, M.M. Impact of lifetime on US residential building LCA results. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17, 337–349 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0363-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-011-0363-x

Keywords

  • Environmental life cycle assessment
  • Interior renovation
  • Lifetime
  • Monte Carlo analysis
  • Residential buildings
  • Uncertainty analysis