Life cycle assessment of construction materials: the influence of assumptions in end-of-life modelling

  • Gustav SandinEmail author
  • Greg M. Peters
  • Magdalena Svanström



The nature of end-of-life (EoL) processes is highly uncertain for constructions built today. This uncertainty is often neglected in life cycle assessments (LCAs) of construction materials. This paper tests how EoL assumptions influence LCA comparisons of two alternative roof construction elements: glue-laminated wooden beams and steel frames. The assumptions tested include the type of technology and the use of attributional or consequential modelling approaches.


The study covers impact categories often considered in the construction industry: total and non-renewable primary energy demand, water depletion, global warming, eutrophication and photo-chemical oxidant creation. The following elements of the EoL processes are tested: energy source used in demolition, fuel type used for transportation to the disposal site, means of disposal and method for handling allocation problems of the EoL modelling. Two assumptions regarding technology development are tested: no development from today’s technologies and that today’s low-impact technologies have become representative for the average future technologies. For allocating environmental impacts of the waste handling to by-products (heat or recycled material), an attributional cut-off approach is compared with a consequential substitution approach. A scenario excluding all EoL processes is also considered.

Results and discussion

In all comparable scenarios, glulam beams have clear environmental benefits compared to steel frames, except for in a scenario in which steel frames are recycled and today’s average steel production is substituted, in which impacts are similar. The choice of methodological approach (attributional, consequential or fully disregarding EoL processes) does not seem to influence the relative performance of the compared construction elements. In absolute terms, four factors are shown to be critical for the results: whether EoL phases are considered at all, whether recycling or incineration is assumed in the disposal of glulam beams, whether a consequential or attributional approach is used in modelling the disposal processes and whether today’s average technology or a low-impact technology is assumed for the substituted technology.


The results suggest that EoL assumptions can be highly important for LCA comparisons of construction materials, particularly in absolute terms. Therefore, we recommend that EoL uncertainties are taken into consideration in any LCA of long-lived products. For the studied product type, LCA practitioners should particularly consider EoL assumptions regarding the means of disposal, the expected technology development of disposal processes and any substituted technology and the choice between attributional and consequential approaches.


Attributional Consequential Construction product Disposal LCA Long-lived product Infrastructure Waste management 



This research was funded by the EU FP7 grant 246434, WoodLife.

Supplementary material

11367_2013_686_MOESM1_ESM.docx (33 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 32 kb)


  1. Ardente F, Beccali M, Cellura M, Mistretta M (2008) Building energy performance: a LCA case study of kenaf-fibres insulation board. Energy Build 40:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvidsson R, Fransson K, Fröling M, Svanström M, Molander S (2012) Energy use indicators in energy and life cycle assessments of biofuels: review and recommendations. J Clean Prod 31:54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beccali M, Cellura M, Fontana M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2013) Energy retrofit of a single-family house: life cycle net energy saving and environmental benefits. Renew Sust Energ Rev 27:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Björklund T, Tillman A-M (1997) LCA of Building Frame Structures: Environmental Impact over the Life Cycle of Wooden and Concrete Frames. Technical Environmental Planning Report 1997:2, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  5. Björklund T, Jönsson Å, Tillman A-M (1996) LCA of Building Frame Structures: Environmental Impact over the Life Cycle of Concrete and Steel Frames. Technical Environmental Planning Report 1996:8, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  6. Blengini GA (2009) Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a case study in Turin, Italy. Build Environ 44:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Börjesson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2005) Towards a user’s guide to scenarios—a report on scenario types and scenario techniques. Environmental Strategies Research, Department of Urban Studies, Royal Institute of Technology, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouhaya L, Le Roy R, Feraille-Fresnet A (2009) Simplified environmental study on innovative bridge structures. Environ Sci Technol 43:2066–2071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandão M, Levasseur A, Kirschbaum MUF, Weidema BP, Cowie AL, Jørgensen SV et al (2013) Key issues and options in accounting for carbon sequestration and temporary storage in life cycle assessment and carbon footprinting. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):230–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brander M, Wylie C (2012) The use of substitution in attributional life cycle assessment. Greenh Gas Meas Manag 1:161–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bribián IZ, Capilla AV, Usón AA (2011) Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ 26:1133–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. BSI (2011) PAS 2050:11, Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. Accessed 18 February 2013
  13. Carling O (2008) Limträ: handbok (English: “Glulam: handbook”). Print and Media Center i Sundsvall AB, Sundsvall, Sweden. Accessed 7 March 2012
  14. Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2011) Sensitivity analysis to quantify uncertainty in life cycle assessment: the case study of an Italian tile. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(9):4697–4705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cuéllar-Franca RM, Azapagic A (2012) Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: life cycle assessment of houses. Build Environ 54:86–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dixit MK, Fernández-Solís JL, Lavy S, Culp CH (2012) Need for en embodied energy measurement protocol for buildings: a review paper. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16:3730–3743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erlandsson M (2007) Miljödeklaration: limträ (English: “Environmental product declaration: glulam”). Accessed 6 February 2013
  18. European Commission (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—general guide for life cycle assessment—detailed guidance, 1st edn. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  19. Frijia S, Guhathakurta S, Williams E (2011) Functional unit, technological dynamics, and scaling properties for the life cycle of residencies. Environ Sci Technol 46:1782–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2012) ReCiPe 2008 (first edition) – report I: characterisation (updated 13 July 2012). Accessed January 21 2013
  21. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A et al (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  22. Habert G, Arribe D, Dehove T, Espinasse L, Le Roy R (2012) Reducing environmental impact by increasing the strength of concrete: quantification of the improvement to concrete bridges. J Clean Prod 35:250–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jungbluth N, Emmenegger MF, Dinkel F, Stettler C, Gabor D, Chudacoff M et al (2007) Life Cycle Inventories of Bioenergy. Ecoinvent report no. 17. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  24. Kounina A, Margni M, Bayart J-B et al (2013) Review of methods addressing freshwater use in life cycle inventory and impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(3):707–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lippke B, Wilson J, Meil J, Taylor A (2010) Characterising the impact of carbon stored in wood products. Wood Fiber Sci 42:5–14Google Scholar
  26. Lundie S, Peters G, Beavis P (2004) Life cycle assessment for sustainable metropolitan water systems planning—options for ecological sustainability. Environ Sci Technol 38:3465–3473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mathiesen BV, Münster M, Fruergaard T (2009) Uncertainties related to the identification of the marginal technology in consequential life cycle assessments. J Clean Prod 17:1331–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ortiz O, Pasqualino JC, Castells F (2010) The environmental impact of the construction phase: an application to composite walls from a life cycle perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:832–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. PE International (2013) GaBi software.
  30. Persson C, Fröling M, Svanström M (2006) Life cycle assessment of the district heat distribution system, part 3: use phase and overall discussion. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pesonen HL, Ekvall T, Fleischer G, Huppes G, Jahn C, Klos SZ, Rebitzer G et al (2000) Framework for scenario development in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peters GM (2009) Popularize or publish—growth in Australia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peters GM, Wiedemann SG, Rowley HV, Tucker RW (2010) Accounting for water use in Australian red meat production. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(3):311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Petersen A-K, Solberg B (2005) Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between wood products and alternative materials: a review of micro-level analyses from Norway and Sweden. Forest Policy Econ 7:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Puettmann M, Olein E, Johnson L (2013) Cradle to gate life cycle assessment of glue-laminated timbers production from the Pacific Northwest. Accessed 6 February 2013
  36. Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2013) Moving down the cause-effect chain of water and land use impacts: an LCA case study of textile fibres. Resour Conserv Recy 73:104–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schmidt J H, Merciai S, Thrane M, Dalgaard R (2011) Inventory of country specific electricity in LCA – Consequential and attributional scenarios, Methodology report. 2.−0 LCA consultants. Accessed 5 October 2012
  38. Singh A, Berghorn G, Joshi S, Syal M (2011) Review of life-cycle assessment applications in building construction. J Arch Eng 17:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. SIS (2012) SS-EN 15804:2012 Sustainability of construction works—environmental product declarations—core roles for the product category of construction products. Swedish Standards Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  40. Thiers S, Peuportier B (2012) Energy and environmental assessment of two high energy performance residential buildings. Build Environ 51:276–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thormark C (2002) A low energy building in a life cycle—its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential. Build Environ 37:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Upton B, Miner R, Spinney M, Heath LS (2008) The greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United States. Biomass Bioenerg 32:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verbeeck G, Hens H (2007) Life cycle optimization of extremely low energy dwellings. J Build Phys 31(2):143–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. WBCSD/WRI (2011) Product Accounting & Reporting Standard. Accessed 18 February 2013

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustav Sandin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Greg M. Peters
    • 2
  • Magdalena Svanström
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Wood TechnologySP Technical Research Institute of SwedenBoråsSweden
  2. 2.Division of Chemical Environmental ScienceChalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations