Combining Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Assessments in Building Energy Renovation Projects

Moschetti, Roberta; Brattebø, Helge

doi:10.3390/en10111851

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though recent efforts are aiming to link the LCC and LCA analyses (Moschetti & Brattebø, 2017;Ristimäki et al, 2013), currently there is no available regulation or agreed upon methodology that combines both. In the existing studies, the combined analyses have been predominantly performed for the assessment of residential building projects.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost and environmental analyses of reinforcement alternatives for a concrete bridge

Cadenazzi

Dotelli

Rossini

et al. 2019

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reinforced Concrete (RC) and Prestressed Concrete (PC) structures using conventional materials in aggressive exposure conditions are susceptible to corrosion. Non-corrosive reinforcement materials such as: Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) rebars; Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) strands; Stainless-Steel (SS); and Epoxy-coated steel (ECS) reinforcing bars, are attracting attention as more appropriate options in concrete structures. This paper addresses a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis that verifies the cost performance of four different alternative reinforcement bars for the design of a demonstration FRP-RC/PC bridge in Florida, namely Halls River Bridge (HRB). The four different alternatives to be compared are namely Carbon Steel (CS), SS, FRP, and ECS, and the analysis is performed over 100-years. Additionally, a Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is included in the analysis to investigate the environmental credentials of the four design alternatives. Cost sensitivity analyses over specific parameters are included. The parameters analyzed are: reinforcement cost, changes in chloride concentration levels over the bridge service life, and discount rate values. Conclusions and recommendations for standard practices and design of future alternative solutions are then presented.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost and environmental analyses of reinforcement alternatives for a concrete bridge

Cadenazzi

Dotelli

Rossini

et al. 2019

Structure and Infrastructure Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A large part of the costs and environmental loads of a building are influenced by the choices made in the design phase [5]. Planning the life cycle of a building (or building elements) becomes imperative to support the decision-making process, and this is demonstrated by the numerous studies in which optimization strategies, based on very different approaches, are developed in the literature, ranging from genetic algorithms to combined Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and LCC procedures [6][7][8][9]. This allows an increased awareness of the burden of both the costs and environmental impacts of alternative technological and design solutions at every stage of the life cycle (from the raw materials supplied for the construction process to the demolition at the end of its useful life) [10][11][12][13][14].…”

Section: Life Cycle Cost Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy Upgrading of Residential Building Stock: Use of Life Cycle Cost Analysis to Assess Interventions on Social Housing in Italy

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate on the relevance of the global sustainability (including energy, environmental, social, economic, and political aspects) of building stock is becoming increasingly important in Europe. In this context, special attention is placed on the refurbishment of existing buildings, in particular those characterized by significant volumes and poor energy performance. Directive 2012/27/EU introduced stringent constraints (often disregarded) for public administrations to ensure a minimum yearly renovation quota of its building stock. This study describes how Life Cycle Cost analysis (LCC) can be used as a tool to identify the “cost-optimal level” among different design solutions to improve the energy performance of existing buildings. With this aim, a social housing building located in the town of Pisa (Italy) was chosen as the case study, for which two alternative renovation designs were compared using the LCC methodology to identify the optimal solution. The two alternatives were characterized by the same energy performance—one was based on the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new building (with a wooden frame structure, as proposed by the public company owner of the building), while the other was based on the renovation of the existing building. This study can provide useful information, especially for designers and public authorities, about the relevance of the economic issues related to the renovation of social housing in a Mediterranean climate.

show abstract

“…The analysis was carried out using the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) methodology, which allows determining costs throughout the life cycle of a given product or facility. The LCC methodology is also used as cost-effectiveness analysis in buildings, especially for energetic modernization of buildings [73,74]. This method of financial analysis takes into account the initial investment and operating costs incurred during the exploitation of the facility as well as the residual value, which is the remaining value at the end of the study period [75].…”

Section: Financial and Environmental Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Eco-Technology Allowing Water and Energy Saving in an Environmentally Friendly House—A Case Study from Poland

Stec

Mazur

2019

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis on selected alternative systems was carried out to reduce the demand for potable water and energy in a detached house designed in accordance with the concept of environmentally friendly house. The tests included a rainwater harvesting system, graywater recycling system, solar panels, photovoltaic panels, air heat pumps, ground heat pumps, wind turbines, drain water heat recovery units, and biomass boilers. The analysis was made for many investment variants where different combinations of the mentioned solutions were applied. In addition to the LCC analysis, some tests were also carried out to determine an impact of the investment options on the environment. This was done by calculating CO2, SO2, NOx, CO and dust emissions. The research was carried out for a different number of occupants and variable levels of water consumption, which allowed determining the impact of these parameters on the results obtained. They showed that for any of the computational cases the traditional option of the installation was not the most advantageous solution in financial and environmental terms, and the systems in question could be an alternative to this option. Thanks to their implementation, the consumption of fossil energy resources and natural water resources will be reduced, and the emission of pollutants will be limited, which will contribute to an improvement of the natural environment.

show abstract

Combining Life Cycle Environmental and Economic Assessments in Building Energy Renovation Projects

Cited by 25 publications

References 33 publications

Cost and environmental analyses of reinforcement alternatives for a concrete bridge

Cost and environmental analyses of reinforcement alternatives for a concrete bridge

Energy Upgrading of Residential Building Stock: Use of Life Cycle Cost Analysis to Assess Interventions on Social Housing in Italy

An Analysis of Eco-Technology Allowing Water and Energy Saving in an Environmentally Friendly House—A Case Study from Poland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About