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

作者: William O. Collinge , Amy E. Landis , Alex K. Jones , Laura A. Schaefer , Melissa M. Bilec

DOI: 10.1007/S11367-012-0528-2

关键词:

摘要: This paper uses a dynamic life cycle assessment (DLCA) approach and illustrates the potential importance of method using simplified case study an institutional building. Previous (LCA) studies have consistently found that energy consumption in use phase building is dominant most environmental impact categories. Due to long span buildings for changes usage patterns over time, shift toward DLCA has been suggested. We define as LCA which explicitly incorporates process modeling context temporal spatial variations surrounding industrial systems. A mathematical model used incorporate information from building, temporally explicit sources inventory data characterization factors, where available. The was evaluated historical projected future impacts existing with additional scenario development sensitivity uncertainty analysis impacts. Results showed overall varied greatly some categories when compared static results, generated perspective either building's initial construction or its recent renovation. From perspective, related criteria air pollutants were reduced by more than 50 % LCA, even though nonrenewable increased 15 %. Pollution controls major reason these reductions. In analysis, baseline decrease all LCA. outer bounds slightly higher strongly lower indicating general robustness decline across scenarios. These findings support increase relevance results. cases, decision making design operations may be affected considering interaction multiple steps results suggest during lifetime can influence greater degree material phases. Adapting usefulness assessing performance other complex systems built environment.

参考文章(36)
Stefanie Hellweg, Thomas B. Hofstetter, Konrad Hungerbuhler, Discounting and the environment should current impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming future generations International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 8, pp. 8- 18 ,(2003) , 10.1007/BF02978744
John Reap, Felipe Roman, Scott Duncan, Bert Bras, A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 13, pp. 290- 300 ,(2008) , 10.1007/S11367-008-0008-X
John Reap, Bert Bras, Patrick J. Newcomb, Carol Carmichael, Improving Life Cycle Assessment by Including Spatial, Dynamic and Place-Based Modeling ASME 2003 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. pp. 77- 83 ,(2003) , 10.1115/DETC2003/DFM-48140
Jane Bare, TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0 Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy. ,vol. 13, pp. 687- 696 ,(2011) , 10.1007/S10098-010-0338-9
Mark A. J. Huijbregts, A general framework for the analysis of uncertainty and variability in life cycle assessment International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 3, pp. 273- 280 ,(1998) , 10.1007/BF02979835
Oyeshola F. Kofoworola, Shabbir H. Gheewala, Environmental life cycle assessment of a commercial office building in Thailand International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 13, pp. 498- 511 ,(2008) , 10.1007/S11367-008-0012-1
Sebastien Humbert, Rima Manneh, Shanna Shaked, Cédric Wannaz, Arpad Horvath, Louise Deschênes, Olivier Jolliet, Manuele Margni, Assessing regional intake fractions in North America. Science of The Total Environment. ,vol. 407, pp. 4812- 4820 ,(2009) , 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2009.05.024
Tomas Ekvall, Bo P. Weidema, System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. ,vol. 9, pp. 161- 171 ,(2004) , 10.1007/BF02994190
Frank Field, Randolph Kirchain, Joel Clark, Life‐Cycle Assessment and Temporal Distributions of Emissions: Developing a Fleet‐Based Analysis Journal of Industrial Ecology. ,vol. 4, pp. 71- 91 ,(2000) , 10.1162/108819800569816