University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Life cycle assessment: existing building retrofit versus replacement

(USC Thesis Other)

Life cycle assessment: existing building retrofit versus replacement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT:

Existing Building Retrofit versus Replacement

by

Nura Darabi

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF BUILDING SCIENCE

August 2013

Copyright (2013) Nura Darabi

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the faculty of the USC School of Architecture Master of Building Science program for all
knowledge and skills that I have received through this program, which this thesis would not have been possible
without. In particular I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the members of my thesis committee for
their commitment and encouragement. Professor Kyle Konis for trusting in me and the importance of this topic,
Professor Karen Kensek for her efforts and dedication to bringing out my best work, and Andrea Martinez for her
understanding and priceless motivation through this process.

I also wish to convey my gratitude to my family and friends that have been there to support me over the past two
years. Your encouragement and patience has been indispensable, thank you for believing in me.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES 6
ABSTRACT 8
1.0 AN INTRODUCTION TO LIFE;CYCLE ASSESSMENT IN BUILDINGS 9

1.1 Introduction: Greater Implications of Life Cycle Analysis 9
1.2. Life Cycle Assessment 10

1.2.1 Life Cycle Stages 11

1.2.2 Impact Categories 12

1.3 Life;Cycle Energy Analysis 13
1.3.1 Embodied Energy 14
1.3.2 Operational Energy 14
1.4 Existing LCA Tools 14
1.5 ISO 14040 17
1.6 Study Considerations 17
1.7 Scope and Intended Deliverables 17
1.8 Organization of the Document 18
2.0 CURRENT STATE OF LCA AND CASE STUDY BUILDING 19
2.1 LCA in the Building Industry 19
2.1.1 Material Level 19
2.1.2 Product Level 21
2.1.3; Building Level 21
2.1.4; Industry Level 22
2.2 Inventory of Carbon and Energy 22
2.3 Research Case Studies 23
2.3.1 Observations of Research Case Studies 24
2.4 Conducting an LCA for Case Study Comparison of Retrofit versus Replacement 24
3.0 LCA SCOPE & METHODOLOGY 26
3.1 Methodology 26
3.2 Scope and Goal for Case Study Building LCA 26
3.2.1 The Goal 26
3.2.2 Von Kleinsmid Center Case Study Building Description 27
4
3.2.3 Functional Unit and System Boundary 29
3.2.4 Assumptions 30
3.2.5 Methodology for Determining Operational Energy 31
3.2.6 Limitations 34
3.2.7 Environmental Impact Indicators 34
3.2.8 Improvement Options 34
3.2.9 Carbon Intensity of Fuel Sources 35
3.2.10 Energy payback times 36
3.2.11 Changes in Energy Cost 36
3.3 Inventory Analysis 36
3.3.1 Software Programs Used 36
3.3.2 Energy Performance Inputs 36
3.3.3 Material Inputs for Retrofit Options 37
3.3.4 Material Inputs for Existing & Retrofit Options 37
3.3.5 Material Inputs for Replacement Options 38
3.3.6 Outputs 38
3.4 Interpretation 39
3.4.1 Scenario Approach 39
4.0 LCA CASE STUDY;VON KLEINSMID CENTRE 40
4.1 Raw Data Outputs 40
4.2 Athena Tables 40
4.3 Life Cycle Charts 41
4.4 Life Cycle CO2 Charts 42
4.4.1; Existing VKC Building Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
Emissions 43
4.4.2; 20% Retrofit Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions 45
4.4.3; 40% Retrofit Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions 47
4.4.4; 60% Retrofit Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 C02 Emissions 48
4.4.5; 80% Retrofit Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions 51
4.4.6; ZNE Retrofit Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions 53
5
4.4.7; 20% Replacement Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions 55
4.4.8; 40% Replacement Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions 57
4.4.9; 60% Replacement Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions 59
4.4.10; 80% Replacement Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions 61
4.4.11; ZNE Replacement Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions 63
4.4.12; Cumulative Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions 65
4.4.13; Total Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions all Scenarios 67
4.4.14; Energy Pay Back years Option 1;10 69
4.4.15; Cumulative Life Cycle Energy Cost 1;10 70
5.0 EVALUATION OF IMPACT OUTPUTS 72
5.1 Scenario 1 72
5.2 Scenario 2 73
5.3 Scenario 3 74
5.4 Scenario 4 75
5.5 Energy Cost Scenario 76
5.5.1 Overall Greatest Life Cycle Energy Cost Savings 76
5.6 Discussion 78
6.0 CONCLUSIONS: LCA AND BUILDING RETROFIT 79
7.0 FUTURE WORK IN LCA 80
7.1 Changes in Replacement Building Design 80
7.2 Changes in Materials 80
7.3 Including Life Cycle Cost 80
7.4 Widen Scope of LCA 81
7.5 Additional Energy Cost Scenarios 81

7.6 Earthquake or other disaster that necessitates a new building 81
7.7 Other Building Types 81
7.8 Other Tools 81
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 82
APPENDIX 83
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Life Cycle Assessment Diagram 11
Figure 2: Life Cycle Stages 12
Figure 3: Example Athena Impact Estimator Assembly Input Window 15
Figure 4: Example BEES Input Window 16
Figure 5: Example SimaPro Interface 16
Figure 6: Levels of LCA within the building industry 19
Figure 7: LCI Data for Portland Cement 21
Figure 8: Aluminum Material Profile from Inventory of Carbon and Energy Database 22
Figure 9: VKC Location 28
Figure 10: VKC Tower, Basement & Courtyard, Arches and Exterior walls, Interior Corridors 29
Figure 11: VKC Building Plans 29
Figure 12: LCA Boundaries 30
Figure 13: Methodology Diagram 32
Figure 14: Partial Existing VKC Life Cycle Energy Table (2012;2027) 41
Figure 15: Example Life Cycle Energy Chart with Annotations 41
Figure 16: Example Life Cycle CO2 Chart with Annotations 42
Figure 17: Existing VKC building LCE 43
Figure 18: Existing Building Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 44
Figure 19: Scenario 1; 20% Retrofit LCE 45
Figure 20: 20% Retrofit Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 46
Figure 21: Scenario 2; 40% Retrofit LCE 47
Figure 22: 40% Retrofit Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 48
Figure 23: Scenario 3; 60% Retrofit LCE 49
Figure 24: 60% Retrofit Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 50
Figure 25: Scenario 4; 80% Retrofit LCE 51
Figure 26: 80% Retrofit Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 52
Figure 27: Scenario 5; ZNE Retrofit LCE 53
Figure 28: ZNE Retrofit Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 54
Figure 29: Scenario 6; 20% Replacement LCE 55
7
Figure 30: 20% Replacement Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 56
Figure 31: Scenario 7; 40% Replacement LCE 57
Figure 32: 40% Replacement Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 58
Figure 33: Scenario 8; 60% Replacement LCE 59
Figure 34: 60% Replacement Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 60
Figure 35: Scenario 9; 80% Replacement LCE 61
Figure 36: 80% Replacement Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 62
Figure 37: Scenario 10; Zero Net Energy building LCE 63
Figure 38: ZNE Replacement Total LC CO2 by Life Cycle Phase 64
Figure 39: Cumulative Life Cycle Energy for Option 1;10 65
Figure 40: Cumulative LC CO2 66
Figure 41: Adjusted Cumulative LC CO2 66
Figure 42: Option 1;10 Total Life Cycle Energy by Life Cycle Phase 67
Figure 43: Option 1;10 Total Life Cycle CO2 Emissions 68
Figure 44: Energy Payback Years Option 1;10 69
Figure 45: Life Cycle Energy Cost Option 1;10 70
Figure 46: Adjusted Life Cycle Energy Cost Option 1;10 71
Figure 47: Greatest Life Cycle Energy Savings 73
Figure 48: Greatest Life Cycle CO2 Savings 74
Figure 49: Fastest Energy Payback Option 75
Figure 50: Replacement Option Fasted Carbon Payback Time 76
Figure 51: ZNE Retrofit Life Cycle Energy Cost Savings 77
Figure 52: ZNE Retrofit Adjusted Life Cycle Energy Cost Savings 77

8
ABSTRACT

The embodied energy in building materials constitutes a large part of the total energy required for any
building (Thormark 2001, 429). In working to make buildings more energy efficient this needs to be considered.
Integrating considerations about life cycle assessment for buildings and materials is one promising way to reduce the
amount of energy consumption being used within the building sector and the environmental impacts associated with
that energy. A life cycle assessment (LCA) model can be utilized to help evaluate the embodied energy in building
materials in comparison to the buildings operational energy. This thesis takes into consideration the potential life
cycle reductions in energy and CO
2
emissions that can be made through an energy retrofit of an existing building
verses demolition and replacement with a new energy efficient building. A 95,000 square foot institutional building
built in the 1960‘s was used as a case study for a building LCA, along with a calibrated energy model of the existing
building created as part of a previous Masters of Building Science thesis. The chosen case study building was
compared to 10 possible improvement options of either energy retrofit or replacement of the existing building with a
higher energy performing building in order to see the life cycle relationship between embodied energy, operational
energy, and C0
2
emissions. As a result of completing the LCA, it is shown under which scenarios building retrofit
saves more energy over the lifespan of the building than replacement with new construction. It was calculated that
energy retrofit of the chosen existing institutional building would reduce the amount of energy and C0
2
emissions
associated with that building over its life span.
Research Questions:
1. Can the LCA methodology be used to assess the environmental benefits of existing building retrofits?
2. How can the life cycle energy impacts of a building in need of retrofit compare to those generated by the
demolition of the building and its replacement with new construction?
3. How can the life cycle CO2 emissions of a building in need of retrofit compare to those generated by the
demolition of the building and its replacement with new construction?
4.What impact does changes in carbon intensity of fuels sources throughout the buildings life span have on the
decisions for a building in need of retrofit compared to those generated by the demolition of the building and its
replacement with new construction?
9
1.0 AN INTRODUCTION TO LIFE;CYCLE ASSESSMENT IN BUILDINGS
This chapter gives an introduction to life cycle assessment for buildings, explains relevant terms and
concepts related to life cycle assessment, embodied energy, and the existing standards and tools currently being used
in industry today.

1.1 Introduction: Greater Implications of Life Cycle Analysis

Buildings are major consumers of energy and natural resources. Worldwide, 30;40% of all primary energy
is used for buildings and responsible for 40;50% of greenhouse gas emissions (Asif et al. 2007, 1391). It is vital that
the building industry study methods and implement practical measures for achieving sustainable development with
minimal environmental impact. As the building sector seeks to reduce energy consumption to lower the amount of
C0
2
emissions associated with buildings, understanding the embodied energy correlated with materials over the life
span of a building is becoming increasingly important. The total energy use in a life cycle approach includes all the
energy needed for both operational and embodied energy. Operational energy is the energy needed to run heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, domestic hot water, lighting, and other equipment within the
building. Embodied energy is the energy required for the creation of a material or product, from harvest to delivery
to use. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings has the potential for uncovering significant strategies to achieve
reductions in primary energy use, operational use, and ultimately greenhouse gas emissions.
Buildings demand large amounts of energy during their life span, from construction to demolition. Being
able to study the total energy used during that life span is beneficial for designers in order to identify phases where
the largest amount of energy is being used to be able to develop a plan to reduce that use. Recently, whole building
energy simulations are used to assist designers to compare the impacts of various design options in reaching optimal
energy performance during the operating phase of a buildings life. These simulations can also be used to guide
designers in how to achieve designing zero net energy (ZNE) buildings.
As many building owners look for opportunities to decrease the energy use of existing buildings,
developing a plan for an energy retrofit is becoming a more important consideration. Still, this is only addressing the
issue of energy use within the context of a single phase of a building’s life cycle. Although it is important to make
attempts to remedy problems with how these existing buildings are designed so that they can use less energy for the
remainder of their life span, it is also imperative to make these considerations within the context of the building’s
entire life span. This means taking into account the energy already invested in the materials that make up the
10
building, and any additional materials that could potentially be added to the building as part of a retrofit and any
energy from maintenance that could be required. The problem is that decision makers often assume a new low
energy building is the best option.

1.2. Life Cycle Assessment is a compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and environmental impacts of a
product throughout all the stages of its life (Fig. 1). It is a way to evaluate the effect that a product or activity has
on the environment by identifying and quantifying the energy and materials used and the waste created, in order to
assess the impact of those energy and materials used on the environment; and to discover opportunities to make
environmental improvements (Finkbeiner et al. 2006, V). The scope of LCA depends on the purpose of conducting
the assessment. There are two primary ways for conducting an LCA, process;based LCA and economic input;output
based LCA.

Process;based LCA Method; In this type of LCA, the inputs of materials and energy resources, and the outputs of
emissions, wastes, and environmental effects for each step required in producing the product are itemized. This is
the most common method used within the building construction industry in the form of several types (Bayer et al.
2010, 47). According to Bayer et al. (2010) there are four main types within the process;based LCA:

• Cradle;to;Grave; Assessment of the full life cycle from manufacture, use, and disposal phases.
• Cradle;to;Gate; Partial product life cycle assessme nt from manufacture to the factory or building site
before it is transported.
• Cradle;to;Cradle; Assessment of the full life cycle of a product, similar to cradle;to;grave, where instead of
disposal at the end;of;life the product is recycled.
• Gate;to;Gate; Partial LCA that takes into considera tion only one process in the entire production chain of a
material or product.

Economic Input;Output based LCA Method; This method is used to estimate the energy, resources, and emissions
associated with types of activities within an economy. This method is used to evaluate an entire sector of the
economy and all the activities within every industry. Instead of examining a single process in detail, this method
relies on sector averages to represent a subset of that sector related to a particular product or material. This method is
11
not appropriate for determining the embodied energy of materials within the building industry to see how certain
decisions or actions can be beneficial or harmful for a specific project (Bayer et al. 2010, 47).

Figure 1: Life Cycle Assessment Diagram

1.2.1 Life Cycle Stages; Like the phases associated with all products and materials, buildings must go through
several stages in their life, these stages are material manufacturing, construction, user, maintenance, and end;of;life
(Fig.2). Bayer et al (2010, 48;49) has defined those stages as follows:
Material Manufacturing the extraction of raw materials from the earth, transportation to the manufacturing facility,
manufacture of materials, building product fabrication, and packaging and distribution of building products.

Construction all activities associated with the actual construction of the building. This includes transportation of
materials/products to the site, the use of tool and equipment while constructing the building, on;site fabrication, and
energy needed for site work. Any permanent impacts to the building site are also included in this stage.

Use/Operational Energy consumption required in building operation, water use, waste.

12
Maintenance Replacement and repair of building materials, assemblies, and systems required. Transportation
energy used in maintenance, as well as energy use for equipment for repairs is also included in this stage.

Endoflife Energy consumed and waste created from the demolition of the building and disposal of materials to
landfills. Transportation of waste materials is included, as well as recycling and reuse practices when data is
available.

(Versus Carbon Neutron)
1.2.2 Impact Categories; The categories that have been established by agencies and standards like the Environmental
Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and National Institute of Health as
environmental issues of concern (Bayer et al 2006, 53). They are defined as any environmental issues concerned
with the results of life cycle analysis and include global warming potential, acidification potential, eutrophication
potential, fossil fuel depletion, smog formation potential, ozone depletion potential, ecological toxicity, and water
use (Finkbeiner et al. 2006, 5). Bayer et al (2010, 53;54) classifies them in the following categories:

Global Warming Potential Considers the change in the amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere due
to emissions that can be attributed to humans. It is measured in grams equivalent to C0
2
per unit of product. Other
gasses, like methane have an associated C0
2
equivalent, which is included as an impact not an emission.

Figure 2: Life Cycle Stages
13
Acidification Potential The dissolution of acidifying compounds in water or emission as solid particles that can
reach ecosystems through rain, measured in grams of hydrogen ions per unit of product.

Eutrophication Potential When a new or scarce nutrient such as nitrogen is introduced to a body of water, causing
the aquatic plant life to become fertilized and grow. This can lead to foul odors, reduction in ecological diversity,
and a deletion of oxygen within the water causing death to fish or other animals, measured in grams of nitrogen per
unit of product.

Fossil Fuel Depletion Measures the depletion and use of fossil fuel, not impacts that may associated with fuel
extraction, measured in mega joules of fossil fuel based energy per unit of product.

Smog Formation Potential Measures the contribution a product may have on the formation of smog through air
emissions associated with fossil fuel transportation, measured in grams of nitrogen oxide per unit of product.

Ozone Depletion Potential The impacts associated with the reduction of the ozone layer within the stratosphere due
to emissions of substances that are known to be depleting of ozone molecules. Ozone depleting potential for
substances is described relative to chlorofluorocarbon (CFC);11, in kg of equivalent CFC;11.

Ecological Toxicity The potential for harm on ecosystems due to chemicals released into the environment.
Measured in grams of 2, 4;dichlorophenoxy;acetic acid per unit of product.

Water Use Depletion of water resources, measured in liters per unit of product.

1.3 Life;Cycle Energy Analysis; When life cycle is viewed from an energy perspective, it accounts for all energy
inputs for a building for the duration of its life cycle. It is an abbreviated form of LCA that uses energy as the only
measured environmental impact. The stages in this analysis include the energy use in manufacturing, use, and
demolition. The manufacture stage includes the transportation of building materials, manufacturing and installation
used in the construction of buildings. Operation stage (use) is energy associated with all activities related to the use
of the building over its life span. The demolition stage includes the destruction of the building and the disassembly
and transportation of materials to landfill sites or recycling plant (Ramesh et al. 2010, 1593).
14

1.3.1 Embodied Energy; the energy required for the creation of a material or product, from harvest to delivery to
use. This includes energy associated with the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, assembly, transport, and
installation. Embodied energy is divided into two parts, initial embodied energy and recurring embodied energy
(Ramesh et al. 2010, 1593).

Initial Embodied Energy; the energy used in the initial construction of a building. It is expressed as an equation
where EEi = the initial embodied energy of the buildings, mi = the quantities of building materials, Mi = the energy
content of those materials per unit, and Ec = the energy used at the construction site for the assembly of the building
(Ramesh et al. 2010, 1593).
EEi= miMi+Ec
Recurring Embodied Energy; the energy associated with having to replace or remodel elements of a building that
may have a shorter life span that the building itself. This would be the energy used in the maintenance needs of a
building during its entire life. The energy embodied in these materials can be expressed as an equation where EEr =
the recurring embodied energy in the building, Lb = the life span of the building, Lmi = the life span of the material
(i). (Ramesh et al. 2010, 1593).
EEr = miMi[(Lb/Lmi) − 1]
1.3.2 Operational Energy; the energy needed to maintain levels of comfort within the building and energy for daily
maintenance. This is the energy needed to run heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment,
domestic hot water, lighting, and other equipment within the building. Operational energy varies largely by the level
of comfort needed by the occupants, local climate, and operating schedules and controls. (Ramesh et al. 2010, 1593).

1.4 Existing LCA Tools;

Athena Eco;Calculator; An Excel spreadsheet set up with several worksheet tabs for different categories of
structural assemblies, which use a set library of built;in assemblies. By entering the total square footage of each
assembly type, the embodied energy and environmental impacts are displayed. The calculator includes energy
associated with resource extraction/processing, manufacturing, on;site construction, transportation,
maintenance/replacement cycles over 60 years, demolition and transportation of materials to landfill (Athena
Sustainable Materials Institute).
15

Athena Impact Estimator; A cradle;to;grave whole;building LCA tool developed by the Athena Sustainable
Materials Institute. It allows the user to compare the environmental impacts of several design options quickly by
inputting information about the building assemblies. The software generates impact reports specific to location,
mode of transport distance, life span entered, and local manufacturing technologies. Operating energy may also be
inputted into the model as an annual average energy consumption, which the software can then use to contrast life
cycle operating and embodied energy. The Estimator includes energy associated with material manufacturing
(resource extraction and recycled content), transportation, on;site construction, maintenance/replacement,
demolition and disposal (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute).

Figure 3: Example Athena Impact Estimator Assembly Input Window
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) ; A LCA software developed by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Engineering Laboratory. This software uses the ISO 14040 series of
standards approach to LCA where all stages in the life cycle are included: raw material acquisition, manufacturing,
transportation, installation and use, recycle and disposal. Economic performance is also measured to be able to
analyze initial investment, replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal (NIST 2010).
16

(NIST 2010)
Figure 4: Example BEES Input Window
SimaPro – This tool allows the user to model products and systems using a life cycle approach by building a
complex model. It comes in 3 versions, compact, analyst, and developer. The compact version is used for quick
results using built in wizards to assist in making the model. The analyst version is used for detailed LCA studies and
intended for expert users, it is also capable of parameterized modeling. The developer version is used for creating
other dedicated LCA tools (SimaPro).

(SimaPro)
Figure 5: Example SimaPro Interface
17
1.5 ISO 14040; International standard for life cycle assessment describing the principles and framework used for
LCA. It consists of the scope and goal of the LCA, life cycle inventory analysis, and life cycle impact assessment,
and interpretation of data. It addresses how reporting and critical review of LCA should be carried out, as well as the
limitations and conditions for use of value choices of the LCA.

1.6 Study Considerations;
This study is concerned with the use of information gained from performing a life cycle analysis for embodied
energy of architectural materials and operational energy. Specifically, this study will focus on the negative and
positive impacts of decisions concerning the materials and use of a building throughout its life span. This study has
four main research questions:
1. Can the LCA methodology be used to assess the environmental benefits of existing building
retrofits?
2. How can the life cycle energy impacts of a building in need of retrofit compare to those generated
by the demolition of the building and its replacement with new construction?
3. How can the life cycle CO
2
emissions of a building in need of retrofit compare to those generated
by the demolition of the building and its replacement with new construction?
4. What impact does changes in carbon intensity of fuels sources throughout the buildings life span
have on the decisions for a building in need of retrofit compared to those generated by the
demolition of the building and its replacement with new construction?
1.7 Scope and Intended Deliverables
A 95,000 square foot institutional building built in the 1960‘s was used as a case study for a building LCA, along
with a calibrated energy model of the existing building created as part of a previous Masters of Building Science
thesis. The chosen case study building was compared to 10 possible improvement options of either energy retrofit or
demolition of the existing building and replacement with a higher energy performing building in order to see the life
cycle relationship between embodied energy, operational energy, and CO
2
emissions. The approach being
demonstrating will create new knowledge about the importance of LCA and can be effective in informing similar
types of decision making.

18
1.8 Organization of the Document
This thesis researches the use of LCA in the building industry as part of a retrofit versus replacement comparison. In
chapters 2.0 & 3.0, a background on LCA and its scope will be given as well as an overview of the LCA to be
carried out on an existing institutional case study building. This will then be used to form a methodology for the
study of this thesis in answering specific research questions. Next, the findings of this study will be presented using
a scenario approach to be able to analyze and evaluate how the research questions can be answered given different
performance objectives. This will then be used to determine the concluding statements, and the opportunities for
future work on this topic.
19
2.0 CURRENT STATE OF LCA AND CASE STUDY BUILDING
This chapter discusses the application of LCA within the building sector and the levels at which it operates:
industry, building, product, and material. Background research in building LCA case studies are summarized with
observations and notes for conducting an LCA for a case study comparison of retrofit versus replacement.

2.1 LCA in the Building Industry;
Currently, LCA methodology applied within the building industry can be seen as operating on four
different levels: industry, building, product, and material. Each of these levels relates to one another and can be seen
to expand from the basics of the material level (Fig 3).

(Bayer et al. 2010, 20).
2.1.1 Material Level; For process;based LCA, the material level is at the core of how a building is defined. The
primary source of information used to determine the environmental impact of materials in the United Stated is the
Life Cycle Impacts (LCI) database created and managed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL
(Bayer et al. 2010, 18). LCI data is what makes up the majority of a LCA analysis since it is where energy and
materials use information is recorded for commonly used products and it is a record of the flows of inputs and
Industry
Building
Product
Material
Figure 6: Levels of LCA within the building industry
20
outputs specific to a country or region. An example of a common building material is cement, below is what makes
up the LCI data for Portland cement found in the NREL U.S. Life;Cycle Inventory Database:
Flow Category Type Unit Amount
INPUTS

Bituminous coal, combusted in industrial boiler root/Flows ProductFlow kg 1.07e01
Clay, unspecified resource/ground ElementaryFlow kg 5.97e02
Dummy, Bottom ash, unspecified origin root/Flows ProductFlow kg 1.01e02
Dummy, Cement bags, at plant root/Flows ProductFlow kg 6.80e04
Dummy, Chains, at plant root/Flows ProductFlow kg 2.01e05
Dummy, Disposal, cement kiln dust, in residual
material landfill
root/Flows ProductFlow kg 3.73e02
Dummy, Explosives, at plant root/Flows ProductFlow kg 2.95e04
Dummy, Filter bags, at plant root/Flows ProductFlow kg 1.92e05
Dummy, Fly ash, unspecified origin root/Flows ProductFlow kg 1.35e02
Dummy, Foundry sand, at mine root/Flows ProductFlow kg 3.82e03
Dummy, Grinding aids, at plant root/Flows ProductFlow kg 3.60e04
Dummy, Grinding media, at plant root/Flows ProductFlow kg 1.40e04
Dummy, Middle distillates, combusted in
industrial boiler
root/Flows ProductFlow m3 1.07e06
Dummy, Oil and grease, at plant root/Flows ProductFlow kg 1.30e04
Dummy, Petroleum coke, combusted in
industrial boiler
root/Flows ProductFlow kg 2.23e02
Dummy, Recycling, cement kiln dust root/Flows ProductFlow kg 9.65e03
Dummy, Refractory material, unspecified, at
plant
root/Flows ProductFlow kg 6.47e04
Dummy, Slag, at blast furnace root/Flows ProductFlow kg 1.98e02
Dummy, Waste, miscellaneous, combusted in
industrial boiler
root/Flows ProductFlow kg 1.48e03
Dummy, Waste, oil, combusted in industrial
boiler
root/Flows ProductFlow m3 4.87e07
Dummy, Waste, other solid, combusted in
industrial boiler
root/Flows ProductFlow kg 9.34e04
Dummy, Waste, solvents, combusted in
industrial boiler
root/Flows ProductFlow kg 8.81e03
Dummy, Waste, tire derived, combusted in
industrial boiler
root/Flows ProductFlow kg 3.37e03
Electricity, at grid, US, 2000 root/Flows ProductFlow kWh 1.44e01
Gasoline, combusted in equipment root/Flows ProductFlow l 1.33e04
Gypsum resource/ground ElementaryFlow kg 6.15e02
Iron ore resource/ground ElementaryFlow kg 1.35e02
Limestone resource/ground ElementaryFlow kg 1.37e+00
Liquefied petroleum gas, combusted in
industrial boiler
root/Flows ProductFlow l 1.43e05
Natural gas, combusted in industrial boiler root/Flows ProductFlow m3 5.57e03
Raw material, unspecified resource/ground ElementaryFlow kg 2.64e02
Residual fuel oil, combusted in industrial boiler root/Flows ProductFlow l 4.42e05
Sand, unspecified resource/ground ElementaryFlow kg 4.05e02
Shale resource/ground ElementaryFlow kg 5.22e02
Slate resource/ground ElementaryFlow kg 1.13e03
Water resource/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 7.52e01
Water, process resource/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 8.83e02
OUTPUTS

Aluminum water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 8.60e07
Ammonia air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 4.76e06
Ammonium, ion water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 9.48e07
Carbon dioxide air/low population ElementaryFlow kg 3.74e01
21
Flow Category Type Unit Amount
density
Carbon dioxide, fossil air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 5.53e01
Carbon monoxide air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 1.10e03
Chloride water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 7.27e04
Dioxins and furans, measured as 2,3,7,82
tetrachlorodibenzo2p2dioxin
air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 9.98e11
DOC, Dissolved Organic Carbon water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 1.38e05
Hydrogen chloride air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 6.49e05
Mercury air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 6.24e08
Methane air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 3.95e05
Nitrate compounds water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 5.90e06
Nitrogen oxides air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 2.50e03
Oils, unspecified water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 7.52e06
Particulates, < 2.5 um air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 9.11e08
Particulates, > 2.5 um, and < 10um air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 2.96e04
Particulates, unspecified air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 2.35e03
Phenols, unspecified water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 2.20e08
Phosphorus water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 5.51e09
Portland cement, at plant root/Flows ProductFlow kg 1.00e+00
Sulfate water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 6.16e04
Sulfide water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 6.61e08
Sulfur dioxide air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 1.66e03
Suspended solids, unspecified water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 2.34e04
VOC, volatile organic compounds air/low population
density
ElementaryFlow kg 5.02e05
Zinc water/unspecified ElementaryFlow kg 3.31e08
Figure 7: LCI Data for Portland Cement
2.1.2 Product Level; at this level, information about products are drawn from details about their material content
after that level has been defined. A quantity takeoff of the product is completed, and the energy associated with each
component of the product is summed up. For an accurate product LCA, details about the source and quantities of
materials is needed as well as the manufacturing processes of the product in its finishing (Bayer et al. 2010, 20). An
example of a building product LCA for a heat pump would include the production of the materials (steel, copper,
aluminum, plastic, refrigerants) plus emissions from processes like galvanizing, painting, metal fabrication, welding
etc. (Bayer et al. 2010, 60).
2.1.3; Building Level; Building LCA or Whole;buildi ng LCA, is similar to product LCA where instead the product
would be an actual building itself. This requires knowledge about how the building is being constructed, how the
materials and products are arriving to the job;site, and how the building is planned to be operated over time. There
22
are several tools that have been developed within the US that perform this type of LCA, like Athena Impact
Estimator mentioned earlier in this document (Bayer et al. 2010, 21).
2.1.4; Industry Level; at this level, the economic input;output based LCA method discussed in chapter 1is the most
useful for performing an LCA. This is done instead of performing a process;based LCA for every building in the
industry, which would not be very practical. In order to perform an LCA at this level, the industrial production and
economic outputs need to be examined. In this way, considerations can be made about an entire industry by viewing
the overall outputs, but this approach is less specific. (Bayer et al. 2010, 21).

2.2 Inventory of Carbon and Energy; Database for embodied energy and embodied carbon of over 200 materials that
has been developed by the University of Bath and that can be used to assess the energy and carbon impact of
constructing new buildings. The data is mainly collected from journal articles, life cycle assessments, books,
conference papers, and other secondary resources. The database is separated into different material groups
(Aggregates, Aluminum, etc.), and each main material has its own material profile. A cradle;to;gate boundary
conditions is most commonly used for the scope, but some materials are assessed further and each material profile
will specify the boundary (Hammond and Jones 2008, 1;2).

Figure 8: Aluminum Material Profile from Inventory of Carbon and Energy Database
(Hammond, Geoff, and Craig Jones 2008, 19)
23

2.3 Research Case Studies; Three research case studies have been reviewed in order to gain a further understanding
of impacts vary in comparing retrofit and replacement options for existing buildings.

Research Case Study 1: The source of information for this study was a paper by Preservation Green Lab; “The
Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse.” This research focused on the analysis
of potential reductions in environmental impacts due to building reuse. In this study, an LCA was carried out to
compare the impacts of building reuse versus new construction over a 75 year life span. The four main
environmental impacts examined were climate change, human health, ecosystem quality, and resource depletion. Six
different building types were analyzed, single;family home, multifamily building, commercial office, urban village
mixed0use building, elementary school, and warehouse conversion. These building types were also evaluated across
four different locations within different climate zones, Portland, Phoenix, Chicago, and Atlanta. It was found that
building reuse most often resulted in fewer environmental impacts than new construction (Frey et al. 2011, VI).
Research Case Study 2: “Comparing Life Cycle Implications of Building Retrofit and Replacement Options” by
Bonnie Dong, Christopher Kennedy, and Kim Pressnail uses life cycle environmental and economic analyses to
evaluate the retrofit versus replacement options for a typical four bedroom detached house in Toronto. Three
vintages of the house were used with a 40 year life span, 1930’s solid masonry, 1960’s wood frame, and 1980’s
wood frame. The rebuild option was found to have lower life cycle energy, global warming potential, and air
pollution due to decrease in operational energy. The retrofit option was found to have lower water pollution, solid
waste generation, and material use connected with materials, as well as a lower life cycle cost than rebuilding (Dong
et al. 2005, 1051).
Research Case Study 3: Midcentury (Un)Modern, an environmental analysis of the 1958;73 Manhattan office
building, a study prepared by Terrapin Bright Green LLC compares the opportunities of retrofit vs. replacement
strategies. Using an existing baseline building for comparing performance to alternative scenarios, a detailed energy
model was developed and the best theoretically possible energy retrofit and new high performance replacement
building were compared. The deep retrofit scenario was found to reduce energy use by 44%, but there would be
significant practical and financial barriers like loss of rent from vacating the building during the retrofit. The energy
payback period for this deep retrofit was found to be 44 years, but paying for the upgrades would require higher
rents which would be difficult due to the class and characteristics of these older buildings. The new high performing
building, by being free to change the design the occupancy is able to be increased while reducing energy use by
24
increasing the floor area ratio and square footage through minimizing bulky structure. The new building scenario
was able to increase square footage by 44% with 5% lower total source energy use. Along with the operational
energy use, an approximation for embodied energy of materials of 927 kBTU/sf was used, and it was found that the
new building on a square footage basis the embodied energy required to demolish and dispose the existing building
and construct a new one would be offset in 15;28 years. The study found that it is possible to decrease the amount of
energy used while increasing commercial occupancy in Manhattan by replacing existing buildings with new higher
performing ones, and that the current office building stock is obsolete in terms of commercial value and efficiency
(Browning et al. 2013).
2.3.1 Observations of Research Case Studies; Reviewing these three research case studies was helpful in providing
guidance about the scope, data collection, and assumptions as part of an LCA study, particularly in defining the
boundary for the retrofit building. Seeing the retrofit versus replacement option be applied to different building
types, construction types, and climates was useful to gauge which variables were more important than others and
how the results could vary. For example, the impact that materials can have for one specific building type over
another. It became important to note that the results of an LCA are not always constant, and not weighing the
environmental impacts associated with a building throughout its life span can have the potential to create unintended
impacts and consequences. It was also useful to note what method was used for calculating embodied energy, and if
a life cycle approach was being applied or not.

2.4 Conducting an LCA for Case Study Comparison of Retrofit versus Replacement; In the following chapters, an
LCA study was carried out for a chosen existing case study building using Athena Impact Estimator and a calibrated
energy simulation. In order to demonstrate how LCA can be utilized by designers and decision makers when
comparing the environmental impacts of retrofit versus replacement options, a scenario approach stating several
different performance objectives rather than simply an energy model is used to understand LCA implications of
retrofit vs. replacement.

Having an understanding for how the LCA methodology can be applied to assessing the environmental
impact of buildings and at what levels it operates is important in framing the methodology of this study and future
life cycle assessments. It is also important to understand how previous retrofit vs. replacement studies have been
formulated and how the scope of this document compares to previous work on this topic. For example, which
25
environmental impact categories were chosen to be assessed and to what degree embodied energy of materials was
included. Also, each of these studies utilized a case study building or building type as part of the methodology for
performing a LCA, I chose to do the same and perform a detailed whole building LCA.
26
3.0 LCA SCOPE & METHODOLOGY
This chapter introduces the methodology and scope of analysis for this thesis. The goal for the LCA is
explained, and background information of the chosen case study building for the LCA is given. The system
boundary, limitations and assumptions, type of LCA for comparison, chosen impact categories, and data needed to
be collected is stated. Previous thesis work is explained including its calibrated energy model and the inventory
analysis for energy and materials that were quantified for the LCA. The LCA methodology given is used to gather
data to be able to evaluate how LCA can be used to assess the energy and carbon impacts of an existing building
retrofit for the case study building, how the impacts compare to those generated by the demolition of the existing
building and its replacement with a more efficient building, and how considerations about changes in carbon
intensity of fuel sources throughout the life span can be significant in the contexts of a building LCA.

3.1 Methodology; This LCA was conducted in accordance with the ISO 14040 standards, stating that LCA must
include four steps: (1) Scope and Goal Definition, (2) Inventory Analysis, (3) Impact Assessment, and (4)
Interpretation. In the scope and goal definition step, the product or building that is being assessed must be defined, a
functional unit chosen, the level of detail for the LCA to be defined, the type of analysis to be specified, the impact
categories to be evaluated, and the data that needs to be collected to be identified. The inventory analysis step is
where the energy and raw materials used are quantified to create an inventory of all the inputs and outputs of the
products being analyzed. During this step, software tools and databases are used to pull together inventory analysis
from the material quantities that are entered. The impact assessment step is where the emissions from the products
being analyzed are translated into impacts on humans and the environment. The interpretation step is where the
results of the LCA is presented in a useful way to give information on the opportunities to reduce the impacts of the
analyzed products. This step is important in making environmentally responsible decisions (Finkbeiner et al. 2006,
7;8). Scope and goal definition is described in section 3.2, inventory analysis in section 3.3, environmental impact
indicators in 3.2.7, and interpretation in 3.4.

3.2 Scope and Goal for Case Study Building LCA
3.2.1 The goal for carrying out this LCA study is to compare the environmental impacts associated with the choice
to retrofit and existing building by applying various energy efficiency measures, or to replace it with a new building
with a higher energy performance. It is intended that the chosen environmental impacts of this study and energy
payback times may be used by those planning to make similar comparisons as an approach to options regarding how
27
to lower the energy footprint of an actual existing building. Particularly, this thesis considers the option to retrofit or
replace an existing institutional building with a 60 year life span, based on previous research.
3.2.2 Von Kleinsmid Center Case Study Building Description; Choosing which building to use for the case study
analysis was influenced by several factors. A building was presented where a thorough and calibrated whole
building energy simulation had been carried out as part of a previous Masters of Building Science thesis and was
chosen to utilize the work that had been done and apply it to LCA (Singh 2012). Choosing a building within the
University of Southern California campus was also important to be able to visit, photograph and the materials of the
building. Also, to be able to have access to information at the Department of Facility Management at USC in case of
need further detail not contained in the previous research.
The VKC building is located on the main USC campus in Los Angeles, was built in 1966, and is 95,286
square feet. The building is a noticeable landmark for the campus with a large tower and globe in the center (Fig. 5).
The tower along with the exterior of the building walls are brick structure, with the main building being 3 stories
high. The use for this building is for classrooms, offices, and a library located in the basement. There is a square
courtyard/amphitheater located in the center of the building that extends from the basement to the ground floor. The
enclosed building area is U;shaped with the courtyard at the center (Fig. 6).
This building is located within California Climate Zone 9, which is influenced by both coastal and inland
weather and winds. Generally, inland winds can bring hot and dry air to this area, and air coming off the coast can
bring cool and moist air (Pacific Gas & Electric, 2013).
28

Figure 9: VKC Location

The building has a superstructure of mainly reinforced concrete and steel with an exterior façade of
brick construction (Fig. 5) and an aggregate covered built;up roof. The basement floor is poured concrete
construction and the foundations are spread and poured concrete. The building has an overall high mass
construction and fixed exterior glazing.

29

Figure 10: (Top Left) VKC Tower, (Top Right) Basement & Courtyard, (Bottom Left) Arches and Exterior
walls, (Bottom Right) Interior Corridors

Figure 11: VKC Building Plans9 (Top Left) Basement Plan, (Top Right) First Floor Plan, (Bottom Left)
Second Floor Plan, (Bottom Right) Third Floor Plan

3.2.3 Functional Unit and System Boundary; The LCA includes only the structure and envelope of the case study
building for the life cycle stages shown in Fig. 7 The building lifespan used in the LCA is 60 years. Most building
30
LCA’s use a life span of 50;100 years, there is yet to be a standardized selection even though 60 years is common
(Bayer et al. 2010, 153). It is important to note that the embodied energy and carbon emissions associated with the
materials of the existing building and retrofit building, while significant, are already expended and therefore not
considered. The existing building was assessed from the current operating stage and includes further maintenance
energy, and expected demolition and disposal energy at the end of 60 years starting with 2012. The retrofit building
will include the energy used in the demolition of any materials that may be required and energy used in the addition
of any new materials, operation of the building, energy used in the replacement of materials as maintenance every
15 years, and demolition and disposal of the building after 60 years. The replacement LCA for the case study
building is assessed from the extraction/processing of raw materials, production of building materials, on;site
construction, transportation of materials, operation of the building, energy used in the replacement of materials due
to maintenance every 15 years, and demolition and disposal of the building at the end;of;life. The replacement
building will include the demolition of the previous existing building and the construction of the new building.

Figure 12: LCA Boundaries

3.2.4 Assumptions; In order to use a scenario approach for comparisons of retrofit versus replacement LCA,
assumptions were made. The main assumption is regarding the extension of the life span for the retrofit building.
Because the existing building that would be retrofitted is already about 45 years old, you would have to extend its
31
life span another 60 years (105 years in total) in order to be able to compare the impacts associated with the same
life span for both the retrofit and replacement options (2012;2071). This thesis chooses to look at the impacts from
the point of intervention for the existing building, whether it be retrofit or replacement. This is because, assuming
the existing building was replaced in 15 years after 60 years anyways, this would extend the new lifespan to 2086. If
the existing building was replaced now and the new lifespan extended 60 years to 2071, it could also be assumed
that the building would be replaced then as well, and since this would occur before 2086 the effects of replacing the
building either in 2027 or 2071 would cancel each other out.

3.2.5 Methodology for Determining Operational Energy; As part of a previous MBS thesis for the USC School of
Architecture, Singh presented a post occupancy calibrated energy simulation of the VKC case study building in
order to discover ways to reduce its energy use as part of a retrofit that would enable the building to approach a zero
net energy (ZNE) goal (Singh 2012). The suggested retrofit included 9 final energy efficiency measures (EEM) that
combined proved the hypothesis correct and enabled the building to be ZNE with the use of on;site renewable
energy. The outputs of this energy simulation were used for the operating energy stage of the existing case study
LCA as a baseline, and the 9 EEMs were included to come up with several incrementally improved building options
from 20% energy use reduction to the ZNE proposal for both the retrofit and replacement LCA. The definition of
zero net energy that was applied to this previous study was based on “site energy,” meaning that all energy
consumed must be accounted for and offset at the site of the building.
To complete the LCA, an initial embodied energy analysis for the existing building materials was created
using the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, version 4.2. This software is a whole building environmental life
cycle based decision support tool that takes life cycle inventory information and reports the findings in useful ways.
It creates a model that will provide a cradle;to;grave life cycle inventory profile for a building over a specified life
span. Depending on the information entered by the user, the software performs calculations relevant to the specified
details. The location, for example, will turn on the appropriate electricity grids, transportation modes and distances,
and manufacturing technologies for the product mix of the selected region. Details about the building assemblies are
entered to reflect the geometry and materials of the buildings structure and envelope. The material database of the
software is then able to model the life cycle inventory information from over 1200 structural and envelope assembly
combinations (Athena Sustainable Materials Institute). This was used to get both the life cycle energy use and life
cycle carbon emissions of the building by analyzing its fossil fuel depletion and global warming potential.
32
For the retrofit LCA, the Athena model for the existing building was adjusted for the EEM's out of the 9
suggested that would affect the embodied energy of the building (disposal of existing materials and addition of new
materials). This was done individually for each one and compared with the operational energy savings shown for
each run in Singh’s analysis. Since ZNE is achieved through the suggested EEM's in addition to potential renewable
energy generated on site with photovoltaic (PV) panels, the embodied energy and carbon emissions from the PV
system was included as well. The embodied energy and carbon was calculated using 4070 MJ/sqm and 208 kg CO
2

/sqm of polycrystalline PV panel found in the inventory of carbon & energy (Hammond and Jones 2008, 15). The
embodied energy of the PV system was also counted twice for a total replacement after 30 years. This was used
along with the new operational energy for the remainder of the life span to get the life cycle energy and life cycle
carbon of the retrofitted building. For the replacement LCA, the initial embodied energy of the new building was
assumed to be the equivalent of the existing building with the addition of any energy required from the suggested
EEM’s. The new building included the disposal of the existing building to get the LCE of the replacement building
for its new life span.

Figure 13: Methodology Diagram

Below is the list of EEM’s included as part of the retrofit and replacement strategies:
33
1. Energy Efficient Lighting; LED fixtures were used to replace all lighting fixtures in VKC, new fixtures had
an efficacy of 0.7 lm/watt and resulted in s 16.71% energy savings over the existing building.
2. Lighting Controls ; 3 Stepped; Lighting controls were modified to 3;stepped dimming to save 5.42%
additional energy.
3. Variable Flow Pumps; The pumps for both the chilled water and condenser loop flow were modified to be
variable volume pumps instead of constant volume and save 5.25% energy compared to the existing
building.
4. Displacement Ventilation; HVAC system settings at the coil and chiller level were adjusted to simulate the
effects of displacement ventilation. This was done by setting the design inlet water of the air handling unit
cooling coils at 55F and outlet air temperature at 63F, and the water leaving the chiller was set to 53F and
entering fluid temperature was kept the same at 75F with the zone cooling set point at 80F. This saved
17.43% energy use.
5. Insulated Roof; An addition of 5” glass fiber insulation was added to the roof to increase its R;value to
22.22 and save an additional 1.55% energy use.
6. Mixed Mode; Natural ventilation was included in addition to the mechanical systems being used. This was
done by keeping the natural ventilation set;point at 72F, where an increase in temperature would
automatically open the windows which were able to be opened a maximum of 40%. Doing this saved
2.07% energy use.
7. Energy Efficient Exterior Lighting; All existing exterior 300 W halogen light fixtures being used in VKC
were replaced with 80 W LED flood lights and the controls were set to automatically override schedule
during the day time, this saved 3.31% energy use.
8. Occupancy Sensors; Power adjustment percentage for occupancy sensors were used from ASHRAE 90.1 ;
Table G 3.2. A 30% reduction was assumed for the corridors, and a 50% reduction was assumed for library
stacks to save 2.04% more energy use.
9. Corridor Skylights; Skylights were added to corridors on the third floor along with photo sensors, skylights
were assumed as 3% of total corridor roof area. This saved .06% energy use.
10. Plug Loads; Plug loads were set to the ASHRAE recommended baseline from the current use which is
slightly higher than this. Doing this saves 4.55% energy compared to the existing building.
34
3.2.6 Limitations; During the process of conducting the case study LCA and creating the embodied energy models
limitations and obstacles arose. For example, the corridor skylights for EEM 9 could not be modeled properly as
there was not enough information for Athena simulation. Since that particular EEM was responsible for a .06%
reduction in energy use and the other EEM’s combined lowered the energy use below the site potential for
renewable energy generation, this EEM was omitted from the model. Another limitation was any changes to the
design of the replacement building since this would require a new energy simulation and would diverge significantly
from the findings of Singh’s analysis and the retrofit building.
3.2.7 Environmental Impact Indicators; Of the several environmental impact indicators that were introduced in
chapter 1, the LCA for both the retrofit and replacement are concerned with the following two:
Global Warming Potential Considers the change in the amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere due
to emissions that can be attributed to humans. Measured in grams equivalent to CO
2
C02 per unit of product. Other
gasses, like methane have an associated CO
2
equivalent, which is included as an impact not an emission (Bayer et al.
2010, 53).
Fossil Fuel Depletion Measures the depletion and use of fossil fuel for energy, not impacts that may associated with
fuel extraction, measured in megajoules of fossil fuel based energy per unit of product. (Bayer et al. 2010, 54).
3.2.8 Improvement Options;
1) Existing building + 20% energy improvement retrofit
; This includes EEM 1;2, switching to LED fixtures and using 3;stepped dimming for lighting
controls.
2) Existing building + 40% energy improvement retrofit
; This includes EEM 1;4, adding variable flow pumps for the chilled water and condenser
loops, and using a displacement ventilations strategy.
3) Existing building + 60% energy improvement retrofit
; This includes EEM 1;10, adding 5” R;22.22 insulation to the roof, using a mixed mode
ventilation that includes natural ventilation, switching to LED exterior lighting, adding
occupancy sensors, adding corridor skylights, and reducing plug loads.
4) Existing building + 80% energy improvement retrofit
; This includes EEM 1;10 plus an additional 20% theoretical energy reduction.
35
5) Existing building + zero net energy improvement retrofit
; This includes EEM 1;10 plus photovoltaic panels
6) New 20% energy improvement building
; This includes demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a new building that
includes EEM 1;2 in the design.
7) New 40% improvement building
; This includes demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a new building that
includes EEM 1;4 in the design.
8) New 60% improvement building;
; This includes demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a new building that
includes EEM 1;10 in the design.
9) New 80% improvement building
; This includes demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a new building that
includes EEM 1;10 plus an additional 20% in theoretical energy savings in the design.
10) New zero net energy building
; This includes demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a new building that
includes EEM 1;10 and photovoltaic panels in the design.

3.2.9 Carbon Intensity of Fuel Sources; The resulting global warming potential in life cycle CO
2
emissions for each
of the retrofit and replacement building was adjusted to meet projections of changes in carbon intensity for fuel
sources. This was done by taking the output for life cycle CO
2
emissions reported by the Athena model and
incrementally decreasing each year’s CO
2
emissions by the percentage needed to meet the projections and targets for
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) by a specific year. In accordance with the California
global warming solutions act AB32, which states that the CO
2
emissions for the state must be reduced back to 1990
levels by 2020, LADWP has projected a 39% reduction in CO
2
compared to 1990 levels by 2020 (LADWP 2013).
By the year 2050, they project a reduction of 57%, and AB 32 requires an 80% reduction by 2050 (Carlson 2008,
1480). By adjusting the yearly CO
2
emissions to match the projected changes in fuel carbon intensity, the tradeoffs
regarding the carbon implications for the retrofit or replacement options for the case study LCA can be clearer.

36
3.2.10 Energy payback times will be used as a key indicator to assess and compare the outcomes for each of the
retrofit and replacement options. The time needed to payback energy is calculated by taking the value of any
additional energy required as either a retrofit or replacement option compared to the existing building and dividing
that value by the energy savings that strategy will produce.

3.2.11 Changes in Energy Cost; Similar to adjusting the life cycle CO
2
for changes in carbon intensity of the fuel
sources used, the projected changes in energy prices throughout the buildings life span will also be considered to
assess the outcomes of each improvement option. This was done by multiplying the annual energy usage by the
current utility rate starting in 2012, and using a compound percent increase of 2% each year. These projections in the
rise in energy costs were based on information listed on the U.S Energy Information Administration website as of
May 2013.The current rate that was used was $0.12 per kWh to remain consistent with the rate used in Singh’s study
as part of the cost analysis for operational cost savings.

3.3 Inventory Analysis
3.3.1 Software Programs Used; Three software programs were used to generate data, formulate data, and to perform
the LCA for each of the building options mentioned earlier. DesignBuilder version 3 software was used by Singh to
perform the whole building simulation. Using the Energy Plus engine, a highly detailed HVAC systems were able to
be modeled. The second software used was the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, Version 4.2. By being able
to quickly describe the building assemblies through dialogue boxes, this software was used to calculate a bill of
materials and environmental impacts for the building LCA and customize the results regionally for the appropriate
electricity grids, transportation modes and distances, and product manufacturing technologies. Building life span and
operating energy are also included to report environmental impacts. Lastly, Microsoft Excel was used to formulate
and chart quantities based on the data outputs of both DesignBuilder building simulation and the Athena embodied
energy model.

3.3.2 Energy Performance Inputs; The average annual energy use was taken from the calibrated energy model. This
value is converted into kWh from kBtu/sf and input into the Athena Impact Estimator model for the building life
cycle operational energy.
Existing
VKC
20%
Retrofit
40%
Retrofit
60%
Retrofit
80%
Retrofit
ZNE
Retrofit
20%
Replace
40%
Replace
60%
Replace
80%
Replace
ZNE
Replace
Operating
Energy;
kWh
1431583 1145266 858950 572633 286317 595707 1145267 858950 572633 286317 595707
37

3.3.3 Material Inputs for Retrofit Options; Using the Athena Impact Estimator software, details about the building
slab on grade foundation are entered, including length, width, thickness, concrete psi, and concrete fly ash
percentage. Next, information about the columns and beams for the building were entered into the model. This
includes the following: number of columns, number of beams, bay size, supported span, supported area, column
height, column construction type, and beam construction. This is followed by the floor construction width, load,
concrete fly ash %, and concrete psi information. Walls for each orientation are entered along with their length and
width, assembly components (concrete tilt;up), openings and window area, window materials, window frame
materials, number of doors, door types, and layers of the envelope materials. Based on these inputs, below is a list of
the materials and their quantities for both existing and retrofit building, and the replacement building.
3.3.4 Material Inputs for Existing & Retrofit Options:
Material Quantity Unit
1/2" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 117664.7954 sf
Aluminum 25.6896 Tons
Ballast (aggregate stone) 1088936.195 lbs
Cold Rolled Sheet 1.0249 Tons
Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 975.7982 yd³
Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 2816.1023 yd³
EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 3513.6843 lbs
Joint Compound 12.028 Tons
Mortar 175.2118 yd³
Nails 1.5915 Tons
Ontario (Standard) Brick 52011.3974 sf
Paper Tape 0.1381 Tons
Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 207.391 Tons
Roofing Asphalt 148219.8252 lbs
Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln;dried 0.2009 Mbfm
Standard Glazing 21356.4499 sf
Water Based Latex Paint 3728.1759 US Gallon
Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 3.6405 Tons

60%, 80%, and ZNE Replacement options included an addition of the following material:
Batt. Fiberglass 166988.1028 sf(1")

38
3.3.5 Material Inputs for Replacement Options;
Material Quantity Unit
1/2" Gypsum Fibre Gypsum Board 117664.7954 sf
Aluminum 25.6896 Tons
Ballast (aggregate stone) 1088936.195 lbs
Batt. Fiberglass 166988.1028 sf(1")
Cold Rolled Sheet 1.0249 Tons
Concrete 20 MPa (flyash av) 975.7982 yd³
Concrete 30 MPa (flyash av) 2816.1023 yd³
EPDM membrane (black, 60 mil) 3513.6843 lbs
Joint Compound 12.028 Tons
Mortar 175.2118 yd³
Nails 1.7963 Tons
Ontario (Standard) Brick 52011.3974 sf
Paper Tape 0.1381 Tons
Rebar, Rod, Light Sections 207.391 Tons
Roofing Asphalt 148219.8252 lbs
Small Dimension Softwood Lumber, kiln;dried 0.2009 Mbfm
Standard Glazing 21356.4499 sf
Water Based Latex Paint 3728.1759 US Gallon
Welded Wire Mesh / Ladder Wire 3.6405 Tons

3.3.6 Outputs
Athena Reports; Two main reports were generated using the Athena Impact Estimator for each life cycle
model in order to record the environmental impacts being considered to address the research questions relevant to
this study. The first was the absolute value table for energy consumption by life cycle stage, which reports the
footprint data for fossil fuel consumption at each stage in the building life cycle. For each stage (manufacturing,
construction, operating, maintenance, end;of;life) the fossil fuel consumption is separated for both material energy
and transportation energy. The second report used was the summary measure table for global warming potential,
which reports the footprint data for global warming potential at each stage in the building life cycle. For each stage
(manufacturing, construction, operating, maintenance, end;of;life) the fossil fuel consumption is separated for both
material energy and transportation energy. Below is an example of each report:

39
Energy Consumption Absolute Value Table By Life Cycle Stages

Project VCK
Manufacturing Construction Maintenance End 9 Of 9 Life Operating
Energy
Total

Material
Transportation
Total
Material
Transportation
Total
Material
Transportation
Total
Material
Transportation
Total
Annual
Total
Material
Transportation
Total
Total Primary
Energy
Consumption
MJ
31868679
643495.1174
32512174
703885.69
2338323.991
3042210
26174538
389615.5878
26564154
346811.29
309704.7386
656516
5940548.1
356432886.8
59093914
3681139.435
419207940.6

Summary Measure Table By Life Cycle Stages
Project VCK
Manufacturing Construction Maintenance End 9 Of 9 Life Operating
Energy
Total
Effects
Summary
Measures
Material
Transportation
Total
Material
Transportation
Total
Material
Transportation
Total
Material
Transportation
Total
Annual
Total

Global
Warming
Potential
kgCO 2
1504605
45903.49991
1550509
47458.975
166239.9168
213698.9
199365.55
28866.70998
228232.3
23260.296
23707.93892
46968.23
710745.25
42644715
44684123.2

3.4 Interpretation
3.4.1 Scenario Approach; In order to demonstrate how LCA can be utilized by designers and decision makers when
comparing the environmental impacts of retrofit versus replacement options, a scenario approach stating several
different performance objectives rather than simply an energy model is used to understand the LCA implications of
retrofit vs. replacement. The scenarios will be used to evaluate how the data collected and organized into charts will
be able to find the best environmental option concerned with each performance objective.
Now that the methodology and scope have been stated, and the goals of this LCA explained along with
several assumptions and limitations, the data that was collected can be presented and evaluated on how LCA can be
used to answer the research questions stated in this study. It is important to note that the goal for carrying out this
LCA study is to compare the global warming potential and fossil fuel depletion associated with the choice to retrofit
and existing building by applying various energy efficiency measures, or to replace it with a new building with a
higher energy performance.
40
4.0 LCA CASE STUDY; VON KLEINSMID CENTRE
In this chapter, the results of the life cycle assessment for the case study building are presented for total life
cycle fossil fuel use and global warming potential for a life span of 60 years beginning in 2012. The resulting
environmental impacts are shown for each of the 10 improvement options discussed in chapter 3. These results are
presented graphically to compare the relevant environmental impacts, and address the research questions that have
been established for this study using the methodology explained in the previous chapter.

A life cycle building assessment was conducted to compare the fossil fuel consumption and global warming
potential for 10 improvement options of either an energy retrofit or replacement with low energy building VKC.
This was done to show how building retrofit could be the preferable option when a building is in need of
improvement in its energy use. The life cycle energy demand results for the each scenario will be presented first,
followed by the results for global warming potential which show and adjustment for the effect of changes in carbon
intensity of fuel sources throughout the buildings life span.

4.1 Raw Data Outputs; Values for life cycle energy were collected from reports from Athena Impact Estimator
absolute value table for energy consumption by life cycle stage. The energy values for the manufacturing and
construction phase were summed to find the total initial embodied energy. The maintenance energy for replacement
of various materials and systems within the 60 year lifespan was divided into 15 year increments. The annual
average operating energy consumption was included yearly for each of the 60 years, and the demolition and disposal
energy was imputed in the final year of the life cycle of the building. This data was incorporated into a life cycle
energy chart.

4.2 Athena Tables; In order to set up the life cycle energy and life cycle CO
2
charts, tables summarizing the energy
use and emissions by life cycle phase was created to show the energy demand in time.

41

Figure 14: Partial Existing VKC Life Cycle Energy Table (201292027)

4.3 Life Cycle Charts; The life cycle energy charts were used to chart the energy use by life cycle phase for each
scenario from the year of intervention (2012) to 60 years after (2071).

Figure 15: Example Life Cycle Energy Chart with Annotations

(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
Ex OE
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dem/Dis

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
4.4 Life Cycle CO2 Charts; The life cycle CO
2
charts were used to chart the emissions by life cycle phase for each
scenario from the year of intervention (2012) to 60 years after (2071).

Figure 16: Example Life Cycle CO
2
Chart with Annotations

43
4.4.1; Existing VKC Building Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
Emissions

Figure 17: Existing VKC building LCE

Existing annual operating energy is about 4,184,259.449 MJ, shown over the next 60 years from 2012 to 2071.
Existing total maintenance energy was calculated to be 26,564,153 MJ for 60 years, divided into 15 year intervals.
Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be about 655,500 MJ at the end;of;life. The annual maximum site
potential for on;site renewable energy generation with PV is shown yearly. The total LCE of the existing building is
about 278,000,000 MJ, operating energy being 90.2%, maintenance 9.5%, and demolition and disposal 0.5%.

44

Figure 18: Existing Building Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase

The existing annual emissions for operating energy is 710,745 kg CO
2
shown over the next 60 years from 2012 to
2071. Existing total maintenance emissions was calculated to be 228,232 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided into 15 year
intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be about 46,968 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life. The adjusted
annual emissions are shown across the lifespan to reflect the projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel sources
explained in section 3.2.9. The total life cycle emissions of the existing building is about 43,630,660.5 kg CO
2

without taking into consideration the projected reductions, and 24,509,275.8 kg CO
2
with the reductions.

45
4.4.2; 20% Retrofit Building Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
Emissions

Figure 19: Scenario 19 20% Retrofit LCE

20 % retrofit calculated reduction in annual operating energy becomes 3,347,407.6 MJ. Maintenance energy
becomes 26,564,153.9 MJ. Demolition and disposal energy becomes 656,516.02 MJ. The total LCE of the option 1
building is about 228,000,000 MJ, operating energy being 88%, maintenance 11.6%, and demolition and disposal
0.4%.

46

Figure 20: 20% Retrofit Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase

The 20% retrofit annual emissions for operating energy is 568,596 kg CO
2
shown over the next 60 years from 2012
to 2071. Total maintenance emissions was calculated to be 57,058 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided into 15 year
intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be about 93,936.4 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life. The
adjusted annual emissions are shown across the lifespan to reflect the projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel
sources. The total life cycle emissions of the option 1 building is about 34,959,573.7 kg CO
2
without taking into
consideration the projected reductions, and 19,639,749.8 kg CO
2
with the reductions.
47
4.4.3; 40% Retrofit Building Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
Emissions

Figure 21: Scenario 29 40% Retrofit LCE

40 % energy savings retrofit calculated reduction in annual operating energy becomes 2,510,555.7 MJ. Maintenance
energy becomes 26,564,153.9 MJ. Demolition and disposal energy becomes 656516.02 MJ. The total LCE of the
option 2 building is 177,854,010.1MJ, operating energy being 85%, maintenance 14.9%, and demolition and
disposal 0.1%.

48

Figure 22: 40% Retrofit Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase

The 40% retrofit annual emissions for operating energy is 426,447 kg CO
2
shown over the next 60 years from 2012
to 2071. Total maintenance emissions was calculated to be 228,232 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided into 15 year
intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be about 46,968 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life. The adjusted
annual emissions are shown across the lifespan to reflect the projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel sources.
The total life cycle emissions of the option 2 building is about 26,288,480.4 kg CO
2
without taking into
consideration the projected reductions and 14,770,220 kg CO
2
with the reductions.

49
4.4.4; 60% Retrofit Building Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
C02 Emissions

Figure 23: Scenario 39 60% Retrofit LCE

60 % retrofit calculated reduction in annual operating energy becomes 1,673,703.9 MJ. Additional embodied energy
becomes 257,675 MJ. Maintenance energy becomes 26,564,153.9 MJ. Demolition and disposal energy becomes
656,516 MJ. The total LCE of the option 3 building is 127,900,571.7 MJ, operating energy being 78.5%, additional
embodied energy is 0.2%, maintenance 20.8%, and demolition and disposal 0.5%.

50

Figure 24: 60% Retrofit Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase
The 60% retrofit annual emissions for operating energy is 284,298 kg CO
2
shown over the next 60 years from 2012
to 2071. Total maintenance emissions was calculated to be 228,232 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided into 15 year
intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be about 46,968 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life. The adjusted
annual emissions are shown across the lifespan to reflect the projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel sources.
The total life cycle emissions of the option 3 building is about 17,617,378.4 kg CO
2
without taking into
consideration the projected reductions and 9,900,685.7 kg CO
2
with the reductions.
51
4.4.5; 80% Retrofit Building Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
Emissions

Figure 25: Scenario 49 80% Retrofit LCE

80 % retrofit calculated reduction in annual operating energy becomes 836,851.9 MJ. Additional embodied energy is
257,675 MJ. Maintenance energy becomes 26,564,153.9 MJ. Demolition and disposal energy becomes 656,516 MJ.
The total LCE of the option 4 building is 77,689,458 MJ, operating energy being 65%, additional embodied energy
0.3%, maintenance 34%, and demolition and disposal 0.7%.

52

Figure 26: 80% Retrofit Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase

The 80% energy savings retrofit annual emissions for operating energy is 142,149 kg CO
2
shown over the next 60
years from 2012 to 2071. Total maintenance emissions was calculated to be 228,232 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided
into 15 year intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be about 46,968 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life.
The adjusted annual emissions are shown across the lifespan to reflect the projected changes in carbon intensity of
fuel sources. The total life cycle emissions of the option 4 building is about 8,946,292.5 kg CO
2
without taking into
consideration the projected reductions and 5,031,160 kg CO
2
with the reductions.

53
4.4.6; ZNE Retrofit Building Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
Emissions

Figure 27: Scenario 59 ZNE Retrofit LCE

ZNE retrofit calculated reduction in annual operating energy becomes 2,144,544.8 MJ, but this energy is being
offset completely by PV. Additional embodied energy is 257,675 MJ. Embodied energy for PV is 54,647,195 MJ.
Maintenance energy becomes 26,564,153.9 MJ. Demolition and disposal energy becomes 656,516.02 MJ. The total
LCE of the option 5 building is 82,125,540 MJ, operating energy being 0%, additional embodied energy 0.3%, PV
embodied energy 66.5%, maintenance 32.3%, and demolition and disposal 0.9%.
54

Figure 28: ZNE Retrofit Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase
The ZNE retrofit annual emissions for operating energy is 0 kg CO
2
shown over the next 60 years from 2012 to
2071. Emissions associated with PV are 2,792,065.5 kg CO
2
over the lifespan. Total maintenance emissions was
calculated to be 228,232 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided into 15 year intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was
calculated to be about 46,968 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life. The adjusted annual emissions are shown across the lifespan
to reflect the projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel sources. The total life cycle emissions of the option 5
building is about 3,067,266 kg CO
2
without taking into consideration the projected reductions and 2,245,908 kg CO
2

with the reductions.
55
4.4.7; 20% Replacement Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions

Figure 29: Scenario 69 20% Replacement LCE

20 % replacement calculated reduction in annual operating energy becomes 3,347,407.6 MJ. Embodied energy of
the replacement building is 35,554,383.8 MJ. Maintenance energy becomes 26564153.9 MJ. Demolition and
disposal energy becomes 1,313,032 MJ. The total LCE of the option 6 building is 264,276,023 MJ, operating energy
being 76%, embodied energy is 13.5 %, maintenance 10%, and demolition and disposal 0.5%.
56

Figure 30: 20% Replacement Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase
The 20% energy savings replacement building annual emissions for operating energy is 568,596 kg CO
2
shown over
the next 60 years from 2012 to 2071. Emissions from embodied energy of materials for the replacement building are
1,764,207.8 kg CO
2
. Total maintenance emissions were calculated to be 57,058 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided into 15
year intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be about 93,936.4 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life. The
adjusted annual emissions are shown across the lifespan to reflect the projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel
sources. The total life cycle emissions of the option 6 building is about 36,770,749.8 kg CO
2
without taking into
consideration the projected reductions and 21,419,349 kg CO
2
with the reductions.
57
4.4.8; 40% Replacement Building Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions

Figure 31: Scenario 79 40% Replacement LCE

40 % replacement calculated reduction in annual operating energy becomes 2,510,555.7 MJ. Embodied energy of
the replacement building is 35,554,383.8 MJ. Maintenance energy becomes 26,564,153.9 MJ. Demolition and
disposal energy becomes 1,313,032 MJ. The total LCE of the option 7 building is 214,064,909.9 MJ, operating
energy being 70%, embodied energy 17%, maintenance 12.5%, and demolition and disposal 0.5%.
58

Figure 32: 40% Replacement Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase

The 40% replacement building annual emissions for operating energy is 426,447 kg CO
2
shown over the next 60
years from 2012 to 2071. Emissions from embodied energy of materials for the replacement building are
1,764,207.8 kg CO
2
. Total maintenance emissions were calculated to be 228,232 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided into
15 year intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be about 93,936.4 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life. The
adjusted annual emissions are shown across the lifespan to reflect the projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel
sources. The total life cycle emissions of the option 7 building is about 28,099,656.5 kg CO
2
without taking into
consideration the projected reductions and 16,549,819.5 kg CO
2
with the reductions.
59
4.4.9; 60% Replacement Building Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
Emissions

Figure 33: Scenario 89 60% Replacement LCE

60 % replacement calculated reduction in annual operating energy becomes 1,673,703.8 MJ. Embodied energy of
the replacement building is 35,554,383.8 MJ. Maintenance energy becomes 26,564,153.9 MJ. Demolition and
disposal energy becomes 1,313,032 MJ. The total LCE of the option 8 building is 163,853,796.6 MJ, operating
energy being 61.3%, embodied energy 21.7, maintenance 16.2%, and demolition and disposal 0.8%.

60

Figure 34: 60% Replacement Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase

The 60% replacement building annual emissions for operating energy is 2,842,978 kg CO
2
shown over the next 60
years from 2012 to 2071. Emissions from embodied energy of materials for the replacement building are 3,562,860
kg CO
2
. Total maintenance emissions were calculated to be 228,232 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided into 15 year
intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be about 93,936.4 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life. The
adjusted annual emissions are shown across the lifespan to reflect the projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel
sources. The total life cycle emissions of the option 8 building is about 21,227,206.8 kg CO
2
without taking into
consideration the projected reductions and 13,478,937.4 kg CO
2
with the reductions.
61
4.4.10; 80% Replacement Building Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
Emissions

Figure 35: Scenario 99 80% Replacement LCE

80 % replacement calculated reduction in annual operating energy becomes 836,851.9 MJ. Embodied energy of the
replacement building is 35,554,383.8 MJ. Maintenance energy becomes 26,564,153.9 MJ. Demolition and disposal
energy becomes 1,313,032 MJ. The total LCE of the option 9 building is 113,642,683.2 MJ, operating energy being
44.2%, embodied energy 31.3, maintenance 23.4%, and demolition and disposal 1.1 %.
62

Figure 36: 80% Replacement Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase

The 80% replacement building annual emissions for operating energy is 142,149 kg CO
2
shown over the next 60
years from 2012 to 2071. Emissions from embodied energy of materials for the replacement building are 3,562,860
kg CO
2
. Total maintenance emissions were calculated to be 228,232 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided into 15 year
intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be about 93,936.4 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life. The
adjusted annual emissions are shown across the lifespan to reflect the projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel
sources. The total life cycle emissions of the option 9 building is about 12,556,120.9 kg CO
2
without taking into
consideration the projected reductions and 8,609,411.8 kg CO
2
with the reductions.
63
4.4.11; ZNE Replacement Building Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
Emissions

Figure 37: Scenario 109 Zero Net Energy building LC E

ZNE replacement calculated reduction in annual operating energy becomes 2,144,544.8 MJ, but this energy is being
offset completely by PV. Embodied energy of the replacement building is 35,554,383.8 MJ. Embodied energy for
PV is 54,647,195 MJ. Maintenance energy becomes 26,564,153.8 MJ. Demolition and disposal energy becomes
1,313,032 MJ. The total LCE of the scenario 10 building is 118,078,764.9 MJ. Operating energy is 0%, embodied
energy 30%, PV embodied energy 46%, maintenance 22.5%, and demolition and disposal 1.5%.
64

Figure 38: ZNE Replacement Total LC CO
2
by Life Cycle Phase
The ZNE replacement annual emissions for operating energy is 0 kg CO
2
shown over the next 60 years from 2012 to
2071. Emissions from embodied energy of materials for the replacement building are 3,562,860 kg CO
2
. Emissions
associated with PV are 2,792,065.5 kg CO
2
over the lifespan. Total maintenance emissions were calculated to be
228,232 kg CO
2
for 60 years, divided into 15 year intervals. Demolition and disposal energy was calculated to be
about 93,936.4 kg CO
2
at the end;of;life. The adjusted annual emissions are shown across the lifespan to reflect the
projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel sources. The total life cycle emissions of the scenario 10 building is
about 6,677,094 kg CO
2
without taking into consideration the projected reductions and 5,824,159.8 kg CO
2
with the
reductions.
65
4.4.12; Cumulative Life Cycle Energy and CO2 Emissions

Figure 39: Cumulative Life Cycle Energy for Option 1910

This graph describes the energy use each year cumulatively across the lifespan of 60 years. The difference between
the two sets of lines starting in 2012 can be seen to represent the embodied energy for the replacement building
compared to the retrofit buildings. For each improvement building option, the total life cycle energy is represented
by the area underneath the corresponding line on this graph. Both the ZNE retrofit and replacement scenarios were
included with the use of PV to offset energy use. Without on;site renewable generation, the ZNE scenarios would
operate at a 58% reduction in energy use than the existing building.

66
Figure 40: Cumulative LC CO
2

This graph describes the CO
2
emissions each year cumulatively across the lifespan of 60 years without any
adjustment for changes in carbon intensity of fuel source. The total existing building emissions are circled.
Figure 41: Adjusted Cumulative LC CO
2

This graph describes the CO
2
emissions each year cumulatively across the lifespan of 60 years with adjustment for
changes in carbon intensity of fuel source. The total existing building emissions are circled.
67
4.4.13; Total Life Cycle Energy and CO
2
Emissions all Scenarios

Figure 42: Option 1910 Total Life Cycle Energy by L ife Cycle Phase

This chart is showing the total life cycle energy for each building improvement option, separated by life cycle stage.
The proportion of initial embodied energy for each of the replacement options is relatively the same, with only the
addition of embodied energy from insulation added at 60% and PV included for the ZNE option. Both ZNE retrofit
and replacement options show the portion of operation energy that is being offset by PV.
68

Figure 43: Option 1910 Total Life Cycle CO
2
Emissions

This chart is showing the total life cycle CO
2
emissions for each building improvement option, separated by life
cycle stage. The proportion of initial embodied energy for each of the replacement options is relatively the same,
with only the addition of emissions from insulation added at 60% and PV included for the ZNE option. By
separating for life cycle stage, it can be seen that operating energy emissions is the driving factor in total life cycle
emissions.

69
4.4.14; Energy Pay Back years Option 1;10

Figure 44: Energy Payback Years Option 1910

The 20% and 40% energy saving retrofit scenarios achieve reductions in energy use without any input of
additional materials by switching to LED fixtures and using 3;stepped dimming for lighting controls, and adding
variable flow pumps for the chilled water and condenser loops, and using a displacement ventilation strategy;
therefore the energy payback years are 0.

70
4.4.15; Cumulative Life Cycle Energy Cost 1;10

Figure 45: Life Cycle Energy Cost Option 1910

This graph describes the energy costs each year cumulatively across the lifespan of 60 years without any adjustment
for rises in energy costs. The total existing building energy cost is 9,415,319 dollars.
71

Figure 46: Adjusted Life Cycle Energy Cost Option 1910

This graph describes the energy costs each year cumulatively across the lifespan of 60 years with adjustments for a
compound 2% rise in energy costs. The total existing building energy cost becomes 17,579,874 dollars.

For each building improvement option, being able to compare the data collected through the use of these
charts will make answering the research questions more consistent. Each chart type, LCE energy consumption, life
cycle CO
2,
cumulative energy and CO
2,
and energy payback times, is directly related to the topic of one of the
research questions stated in chapter 1.

72
5.0 EVALUATION OF IMPACT OUTPUTS
The results of this case study LCA for retrofit and replacement are used to answer the research questions
through the use of four scenarios where specific performance objectives are stated. The first scenario is concerned
with finding the improvement option that will save the greatest amount of energy over time. The second scenario is
concerned with finding the improvement option that will save the greatest amount of carbon emissions over time.
The third scenario is to find which improvement options will have the quickest energy payback time. Lastly, the
fourth scenario is to find the replacement option with the fastest carbon payback given the projections for future
changes in carbon intensity of fuel sources.

In interpreting the results of an LCA for a retrofit versus replacement comparison, it is important to be clear
what the performance objectives are. The performance objectives that have been chosen to interpret the results are
intended to address the research questions of this study and are done so through four different scenarios. The
objective of the first scenario is to answer how the life cycle energy impacts of a building in need of retrofit compare
to those generated by the demolition of the building and its replacement with new construction by finding the
improvement option that will save the greatest amount of energy over the buildings life span. The objective of the
second scenarios is to answer how the life cycle CO
2
impacts of a building in need of retrofit compare to those
generated by the demolition of the building and its replacement with new construction by finding the improvement
option that will save the greatest amount of CO
2
emissions over the buildings life span. The objective of third
scenario is to answer one way in which the LCA methodology may be used to assess the environmental benefits of
existing building retrofits by finding the improvement option with the quickest energy payback time. The objective
of the fourth scenario is to address the impact of carbon intensity of fuels sources throughout the buildings life span
by finding the replacement option with the fastest carbon payback given the projections for future changes in carbon
intensity of fuel sources.

5.1 Scenario 1: Objective is to save the greatest amount of energy over the buildings life span ; By looking at the
cumulative life cycle energy chart, the improvement option that saves the most energy by the year 2071 is the ZNE
retrofit building. This is because even though the energy embodied in the PV is high compared to the other life cycle
stages, the amount of additional energy required for all EEMs is relatively low, and there is a 100% operational
energy savings immediately seen starting in 2012. The option that comes in second in total energy savings is the
80% retrofit building, and in third place is the ZNE replacement option regardless of the large amount of additional
73
embodied energy from the demolition of the existing building, PV, and the construction of the new building in 2012.
This is surprising considering that a new building would be the next option to these retrofit options, making the
other improvement options not important if overall greatest amount of energy savings by the end of the life span was
the performance objective for the improvement.

Figure 47: Greatest Life Cycle Energy Savings

5.2 Scenario 2: Objective is to save the greatest amount of carbon emissions over the buildings life span; The
cumulative life cycle CO
2
chart shows that similar to scenario 1, the ZNE and 80% retrofit buildings are the first and
second place options in the greatest amount of CO
2
savings by the end of the building’s life span.

74

Figure 48: Greatest Life Cycle CO
2
Savings

5.3 Scenario 3: Objective is to find the quickest energy payback time; Because of the relatively low addition of
energy from materials for all the retrofit options, the payback time for options 1;4 are all less than one year. The
options with the quickest energy payback time are the 20% and 40% retrofit buildings because they do not require
any additional materials to achieve their energy savings. So if the objective of the improvement was to achieve the
quickest energy payback, the 40% retrofit would be the best option. Being able to apply the LCA methodology for
this type of a payback time comparison is helpful to be able to validate the choice to retrofit over a replacement. For
example, comparing the 40% retrofit scenario with the ZNE replacement scenario, the cumulative life cycle energy
use of the buildings overall energy would become equal in 2032, after which the ZNE replacement building would
surpass that particular retrofit scenario and use less energy (where 40% retro & ZNE replacement lines cross in Fig.
34). Even though the new building would be consuming zero energy due to offsets from PV, it still would take 20
years to catch up to the most realistic retrofit option without the use of PV, major changes in building design or
embodied energy.
75
Figure 49: Fastest Energy Payback Option

5.4 Scenario 4: Objective is to find the replacement option with the fastest carbon payback given the projections for
future changes in carbon intensity of fuel sources; Even though the relationship between energy savings and savings
in carbon emissions is parallel since operating energy is the largest contributor in life cycle CO
2
, because of the
projections in lower carbon intensive fuel sources over time it is shown that the carbon payback time is sooner. The
replacement option with the fastest carbon payback time is the 40% building, which occurs after 4 years in 2016.
This is about 17 years sooner than the energy payback for the same option. Being able to account for the changes in
how long an improvement option will take to payback carbon emissions through the buildings life span is effective
in helping decision makers when comparing multiple scenarios and the tradeoffs between carbon and energy
savings.

76

Figure 50: Replacement Option Fasted Carbon Payback Time

5.5 Energy Cost Scenario: As an addition to the research in life cycle energy and CO
2
emissions, some research was
done to show the changes in energy prices throughout the building lifespan. This was shown to be able to compare
rising cost for energy as a potential performance objective for choosing an improvement option over another. The
scenario looks at which improvement option would have the largest overall energy cost savings throughout the
buildings lifespan compared to the current cost. The improvement options 1;10 were studied for overall greatest life
cycle energy cost savings.

5.5.1 Overall Greatest Life Cycle Energy Cost Savings; The building improvement option that will save the most
cost associated with energy use over the lifespan of the building is the ZNE retrofit option. The overall savings
without accounting for rising energy prices is 8,369,266 dollars; this does not include the cost of the PV system that
would allow the savings in operating energy costs. When the projected 2% annual rise in energy cost is taken into
consideration, the overall savings becomes 15,858,060 dollars. This is significant to note that with a small increase
in the price of energy, the total difference in cost savings that could be seen if the ZNE retrofit improvement option
was to be implemented would be 7,488,794 dollars.
77

Figure 51: ZNE Retrofit Life Cycle Energy Cost Savings

Figure 52: ZNE Retrofit Adjusted Life Cycle Energy Cost Savings

78
5.6 Discussion; The audience that was intended to benefit from the research performed in this study are those who
oversee the decisions concerned with a large portfolio of buildings like on a campus, similar to the case study
building type. Being able to look at specific environmental impacts of these buildings that may be of concern within
a life cycle perspective and evaluating those impacts using a scenario approach is useful in narrowing down the
information gathered and how it is applied to achieve the performance objectives these decision makers set out to
achieve. It is also useful to this audience who manage many buildings at the same time to have a method for
applying life cycle assessment in a realistic way by looking at several improvement options for these buildings at the
same time, and that can be done for multiple buildings simultaneously to look at greater environmental impacts.

Overall, by setting up scenarios to evaluate specific performance objectives related to this case study
building, decision makers are able to use life cycle analysis as a means of making more informed decisions. It is also
important to note that the way the scenario is set up will affect the outcome of the comparison, and the results may
not always be the same. By discounting the life cycle approach in these comparisons, potential huge mistakes can be
made.
79
6.0 CONCLUSIONS: LCA AND BUILDING RETROFIT
This chapter describes the significance of using the methodology described in this thesis in addressing the
problem that a new low energy building is assumed to be the better option compared to an energy retrofit for an
existing building, shown through a building LCA done on an existing institutional building.

The significance of the research conducted for this study can be seen when comparing different several
scenarios and evaluating the results of an LCA approach to improvement comparisons for the chosen case study
building. Depending on the scenario, and what the impact or goal concerned with the comparison being made in that
scenario, the results may not always be consistent. Therefore, by not using a life cycle approach when weighing
several performance objectives, the actual results of the impact may be very different than expected. Another
contribution that this research makes is adding the projected changes in carbon intensity of fuel sources and energy
cost throughout the building life span to the LCA methodology.
It was found that the ZNE retrofit building was the option that achieved the greatest amount of energy and
CO
2
savings by the end of the building’s life span in 2071. The improvement that achieved the quickest energy and
carbon payback was the 40% energy savings retrofit building option. The building improvement option that will
save the most cost associated with energy use over the lifespan of the building is also the ZNE retrofit option.
Although a 60% and 80% reduction in operating energy was shown for both retrofit and replacement
scenarios, these reductions are not as representative without changing the design of the building significantly, and
they are not based on any further EEM’s than the 9 that would total a 58% decrease in energy use. The ZNE retrofit
and replacement scenarios based on Singh’s suggested EEM were able to lower the projected energy use below the
level of the calculated site potential for PV, making all the operating energy offset. Without the use of PV, the same
building would be operating at about a 58% decrease in energy use than the existing building.

80
7.0 FUTURE WORK IN LCA
This chapter mentions some topics for further discussion and research related to this thesis topic that were
not included in this study. These topics, outside the scope of this study and not able to be answered with the methods
used, could provide some next steps in retrofit versus replacement comparisons for existing buildings. These options
included changes in replacement building design, changes in materials, including life cycle cost, widening the scope
of the LCA, additional cost of energy scenarios, and earthquake or other disaster that necessitates a replacement
building.
7.1 Changes in Replacement Building Design; One variable that was not taken into consideration for this study was
the potential to change the design of the replacement building. By changing the design, there would be more
opportunity for energy savings outside of what was suggested in the chosen EEM’s. The replacement building being
built at this time would most likely include design decisions that would not have been required or used at the time
the original building was built, to meet current energy codes or expectations. The amount and type of materials
would also likely change, impacting the embodied energy of the replacement building as well. Anther main reason
why the replacement building design had to be kept consistent for this study was the use of an energy simulation that
had already been done based on the existing building design, if the new building design was changed a new energy
simulation would have to be done that could influence the comparison since they would have been done at different
times and by different people. For the future, it would be useful to see how changes in the new building design
would influence embodied energy through materials and energy use by doing a new energy simulation.

7.2 Changes in Materials; Another variable that could have played a larger role in this study was materials. Because
there was only one case study building being assessed and both the retrofit and replacement building options used
the same materials as the existing building, the opportunity to discover how different materials could have influence
the embodied energy results was not used.

7.3 Including Life Cycle Cost; Similar to including energy pay back times, a cost payback time could be added onto
this study for each building improvement option as another aspect for decision makers to compare if they were
concerned with cost. This would add another layer of consideration when setting up scenarios to compare if cost was
involved in the performance objective that was specified. In these LCC it would be desirable to compare other
parameters for profitability (such as IRR) or the effect of time in the investment (Net present values). Other
81
consideration such as economic incentives of funding opportunities for these retrofit options might be included
while related to energy improvements.

7.4 Widen Scope of LCA; This study looked only at the global warming potential and fossil fuel depletion
environmental impact as part of the LCA. Future work on this topic could be expanded to include additional
environmental impacts such as water use or smog formation potential.

7.5 Additional Energy Cost Scenarios; More scenarios concerned with energy cost changes could be considered
besides just an overall greatest energy cost savings. Also, to look at the changes in energy cost for different sources
of energy and fuel during the buildings life span.

7.6 Earthquake or other disaster that necessitates a new building; Research could be done to look at the impact of
natural disasters within the building life span that would contribute to embodied energy, whether it be through
seismic retrofit, or complete replacement sooner than 60 years.

7.7 Other Building Types; This study considered a specific type of building, institutional. Further studies might
want to cover other typologies of buildings that will add other characteristics that could affect the amount of
operational energy needed or types of materials used.

7.8 Other Tools; This study has relied in the use of Athena software, and based on results of a previous research
using DesignBuilder. It could be desirable to use the results and conclusion from this thesis to other studies using
alternative tools and methods.

82
8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asif et al. 2007. “Life Cycle Assessment: A Case Study of a Dwelling Home in Scotland,” Building and
Environment 42: 1391–1394.
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. “Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings.” http://www.athenasmi.org/our;
software;data/impact;estimator/
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. “Athena EcoCalculator for Commercial Assemblies.”
http://www.athenasmi.org/our;software;data/ecocalculator/
Bayer et al. 2010. AIA Guide to Building Life Cycle Assessment in Practice. The American Institute of Architects.
Browning et al. 2013. Midcentury (Un)Modern, and environmental analysis of the 195873 Manhattan office
building. Terrapin Bright Green LLC.
Carlson, Ann. 2008. “Implementing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Caps: A Case study of the Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power,” UCLA Law Review 55: 1479;1503.
Dong et al. 2005. “Comparing Life Cycle Implications of Building Retrofit and Replacement Options,” Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 32: 1051;1063).
Finkbeiner et al. “The New International Standards for Life Cycle Assessment: ISO 14040 and 14044,” The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 11(2): 80–85.
Frey et al. 2011. The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse. Preservation
Green Lab.
Hammond, Geoff, and Craig Jones. 2008. Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE). University of Bath.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. “L.A.’s Clean Energy Future.” Last modified March 2013,
http://www.ladwpnews.com/external/content/document/1475/1727403/1/Navajo%20+%20IPP%20Coal%20
Elimination%20Presentation%20031913.pdf
NIST. “BEES.” Last modified 2010, http://www.nist.gov/el/economics/BEESSoftware.cfm

Pacific Gas & Electric. “California Climate Zone 9.” Accessed April 25, 2013,
http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/about/edusafety/training/pec/toolbox/arch/climate/california_climat
e_zone_09.pdf
Ramesh et al. 2010. “Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview,” Energy and Buildings 42: 1592–1600.
SimaPro. “SimaPro 7 LCA Software.” Accessed April 2013, https://www.smitherspira.com/simapro;7;lca;
software.aspx

Singh, Sukreet. 2012. “Zero Net Energy Institutional Building.” Masters of Building Science Thesis, University of
Southern California.
Thormark, Catrina. 2006. “The Effect of Material Choice on the Total Energy Need and Recycling Potential of a
Building,” Building and Environment 41: 1019–1026.
Versus Carbon Neutron. “Life Cycle Assessment.” Accessed May 12, 2013, http://www.verus;
co2.com/assessment.html
U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Short Term Energy Outlook.” Last modified May 2013.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/electricity.c
83

APPENDIX: LIFE CYCLE ENERGY, LIFE CYCLE CO
2,
& ENERGY COST

FIGURES

(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
Total
Ex OE
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
4184259
251055567
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Dem/Dis

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
655588
655588
84

(kgCO 2 )
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
Total
Ex OE
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
710745
42644715
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Disp
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46968
46968
85
(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
20% OE
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
200844454
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
656516
656516

86
(kgCO 2 )
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
20% OE
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
34115777
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46968
46968

87
(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
40% OE
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
150633340
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
656516
656516

88
(kgCO 2 )
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
40% OE
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
25586833
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46968
46968

89

(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
60% OE
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
100422227
EE Retro
257675
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
257675
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
656516
656516

90
(kgCO 2 )
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
60% OE
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
17057880
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46968
46968

91
(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
80% OE
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
50211113
EE Retro
257675
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
257675
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
656516
656516

92

(kgCO 2)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
80% OE
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
8528943
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46968
46968

93
(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
Total
OE Offset
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
128672688
EE Retro
257675
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
257675
EE PV
27323598
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27323598
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54647195
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Dem/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
656516
656516
94

95

(kgCO 2)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
ZNE OE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PV
1396033
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1396033
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2792066
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46968
46968

96

(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
20% OE
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
3347408
200844454
EE Replace
35554384
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35554384
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1313032
1313032

97

(kgCO 2)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
EE
1764208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1764208
20% OE
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
568596
34115777
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93936
93936

98

(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
40% OE
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
2510556
150633340
EE Replace
35554384
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35554384
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1313032
1313032

99

(kgCO 2)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
EE
1764208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1764208
40% OE
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
426447
25586833
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93936
93936

100

(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
60% OE
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
1673704
100422227
EE Replace
35554384
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35554384
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1313032
1313032

101

(kgCO 2 )
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
EE
3562860
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3562860
60% OE
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
284298
17057880
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93936
93936

102

(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
80% OE
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
836852
502111
13
EE Replace
35554384
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35554384
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1313032
1313032

103
(kgCO 2 )
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
EE
3562860
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3562860
80% OE
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
142149
8528943
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93936
93936

104
(MJ)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
Total
OE Offset
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
2144545
128672688
EE Replace
35554384
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35554384
EE PV
27323598
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27323598
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54647195
Main
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6641038
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26564154
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1313032
1313032

105

106

(kgCO2)
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
total
EE
3562860
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3562860
ZNE OE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PV
1396033
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1396033
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2792066
Main
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57058
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
228232
Demo/Dis
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93936
93936
107

108

109

110

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The embodied energy in building materials constitutes a large part of the total energy required for any building (Thormark 2001, 429). In working to make buildings more energy efficient this needs to be considered. Integrating considerations about life cycle assessment for buildings and materials is one promising way to reduce the amount of energy consumption being used within the building sector and the environmental impacts associated with that energy. A life cycle assessment (LCA) model can be utilized to help evaluate the embodied energy in building materials in comparison to the buildings operational energy. This thesis takes into consideration the potential life cycle reductions in energy and CO₂ emissions that can be made through an energy retrofit of an existing building verses demolition and replacement with a new energy efficient building. A 95,000 square foot institutional building built in the 1960‘s was used as a case study for a building LCA, along with a calibrated energy model of the existing building created as part of a previous Masters of Building Science thesis. The chosen case study building was compared to 10 possible improvement options of either energy retrofit or replacement of the existing building with a higher energy performing building in order to see the life cycle relationship between embodied energy, operational energy, and CO₂ emissions. As a result of completing the LCA, it is shown under which scenarios building retrofit saves more energy over the lifespan of the building than replacement with new construction. It was calculated that energy retrofit of the chosen existing institutional building would reduce the amount of energy and CO₂ emissions associated with that building over its life span.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Facade retrofit: enhancing energy performance in existing buildings

PDF

District energy systems: Studying building types at an urban scale to understand building energy consumption and waste energy generation

PDF

ctrl+z: exploring the effects of undoing retrofits to pre-war buildings in Los Angeles

PDF

Building retrofitting evaluation: Energy savings and cost effectiveness of building retrofits on Graduate Art Studios at the University of California, Los Angeles

PDF

Embodied carbon of wood construction: early assessment for design evaluation

PDF

Energy efficient buildings: a method of probabilistic risk assessment using building energy simulation

PDF

Energy simulation in existing buildings: calibrating the model for retrofit studies

PDF

Post occupancy energy evaluation of Ronald Tutor Hall using eQUEST; computer based simulation of existing building and comparison of data

PDF

Bridging the gap: a tool to support bim data transparency for interoperability with building energy performance software

PDF

Net zero energy building: the integration of design strategies and PVs for zero-energy consumption

PDF

Zero net energy institutional building

PDF

Night flushing and thermal mass: maximizing natural ventilation for energy conservation through architectural features

PDF

Environmentally responsive buildings: multi-objective optimization workflow for daylight and thermal quality

PDF

Leaf module panel system: novel vertical wall wind energy production

PDF

Integrating non-visual effects of lighting in the evaluation of electrical lighting designs for commercial offices

PDF

Microclimate and building energy performance

PDF

Bridging performance gaps by occupancy and weather data-driven energy prediction modeling using neural networks

PDF

A parametric study of the thermal performance of green roofs in different climates through energy modeling

PDF

Economizer performance and verification: effect of human behavior on economizer efficacy and thermal comfort in southern California

PDF

Daylighting study of a LEED platinum laboratory building: a post-occupancy evaluation comparing performance in use to design intent

Asset Metadata

Creator Darabi, Nura (author)

Core Title Life cycle assessment: existing building retrofit versus replacement

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Building Science

Degree Program Building Science

Publication Date 07/23/2013

Defense Date 07/23/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag embodied energy,life cycle assessment,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Konis, Kyle (committee chair), Kensek, Karen M. (committee member), Martinez, Andrea (committee member)

Creator Email ndarabi@usc.edu,nura.darabi@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-297706

Unique identifier UC11293865

Identifier etd-DarabiNura-1828.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-297706 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-DarabiNura-1828.pdf

Dmrecord 297706

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Darabi, Nura

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA