This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
 Author's personal copy

Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 463–472

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Life Cycle Assessment of a passive house in a seismic temperate zone

Stefania Proietti a , Paolo Sdringola a,∗ , Umberto Desideri a , Francesco Zepparelli a ,
Francesco Masciarelli b , Francesco Castellani a
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Perugia, Via G. Duranti 67, 06125 Perugia, Italy
b
Francesco Masciarelli Architects, Via Ballarini 15, Corciano, 06073 Perugia, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the results of a detailed LCA study of a low-energy consumption building (thermal
Received 22 January 2013 energy for heating equal to 11 kWh/m2 year) located in Perugia, Italy, according to European ISO 14040
Received in revised form 4 March 2013 and 14044. The building matches the criteria of environmental sustainability and bio-architecture, com-
Accepted 1 May 2013
plying with the “PassivHaus” standard. All life cycle phases were included in the research: acquisition
and production of materials, on-site construction and use/maintenance, demolition and material disposal
Keywords:
(100% landfilling and demolition with waste recycling). A life span of 70 years was considered.
Life Cycle Assessment
The research was therefore focused on cradle-to-grave life, based on data collected by authors, inte-
Passive house
Low-energy building
grated with data from the literature. In particular the study was carried out to analyze: the benefits due
Environmental sustainability to the use of recycled materials, a solar PV (during the utilization years) and the final demolition of the
building. The LCA modeling was performed using the SimaPro software application, connected to the
ecoinvent database. The results show that applying energy saving measures (highly insulated building
envelope and passive-house standard, solar PV, waste recycling and recycled products in pre-production
phase) could significantly decrease the impact of modern dwellings, with the consciousness that new
ways of building do not always provide a positive environmental outcome.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the last 20 years, the exploitation of non-renewable resources
and the effects of their applications on environment and human
health were considered central topics in political and scientific
debate worldwide. These kinds of resources have been used in dif-
ferent sectors, from energy systems to private/public buildings and
to production of consumer goods.
The construction sector is one of the sectors with more envi-
ronmental issues, due to exploitation of non-renewable resources,
land use, energy consumption during all stages of life cycle and
waste demolition and disposal, and long-lasting effects of mistakes,
owing to the long life of buildings [1,2]. Italian energy demand
is similar to the EU’s, in terms of net final uses, and is equally
divided into three parts, among the industry, transport and civil
sectors; for the latter, tertiary covers 40% and residential housing
the remaining 60%, with a remarkable contribution associated with
heating (68%) [3]. However, margins for reducing consumptions
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 075 5853930; fax: +39 075 5853736.
E-mail addresses: stefania@unipg.it (S. Proietti), psdringola@mach.ing.unipg.it
(P. Sdringola), umberto.desideri@unipg.it (U. Desideri), zepparelli@tre-eng.com
(F. Zepparelli), info@architettomasciarelli.com (F. Masciarelli),
frenk.castellani@gmail.com (F. Castellani).
are ample. Several studies have been conducted on buildings, since
the first Italian energy saving legislation was issued in 1976 (Law
373/76): they show a 10–20% of energy consumption associated
with the construction phase, 50–80% during the use and the rest
with the disposal [1,4–10].
Improving sustainability of buildings is a necessary process
to develop a critical consciousness toward the environment and
the use of Earth’s resources. In order to reach this goal, appro-
priate tools to investigate their energy as well as environmental
impacts have to be used. In this framework, the present study aims
at assessing the life cycle of a low energy consumption building
built in central Italy and complying with “PassivHaus” standards.
On one hand, efficient energy saving solutions determine bet-
ter comfort conditions; on the other no material can be used in
building construction without undergoing the processes of pro-
duction, processing and transportation: those operations require
energy and use resources that can lead to a significant reduc-
tion of the environmental benefits gained by reducing its energy
consumption.
The study was conducted according to principles of LCA, Life
Cycle Assessment, currently the most appropriate scientific tool to
quantify environmental impacts associated with a process/product,
through the inventory of input and output flows of a selected prod-
uct/process (energy and raw materials, different types of emissions
and other important environmental factors), the assessment of

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.05.013
 Author's personal copy
464 S. Proietti et al. / Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 463–472
Nomenclature
CIGS copper indium gallium (di)selenide
MDF medium density fiberboard
OSB oriented strand board
GER gross energy requirement (MJ)
GWP100 global warming potential, 100-year time horizon
(kg CO2 eq.)
NRE non renewable energy (MJ)
n50 air changes (h−1 )
Pt pints, representing the overall impact of the system
in Eco-indicator 99 method
U thermal transmittance of wall (W/m2 K)
UW thermal transmittance of window (W/m2 K)
rc efficiency of heat recovery exchanger (%)
 linear thermal transmittance (W/m K)
potential impacts and the interpretation of results. The LCA is aimed
at providing environmental information to support design choices,
through the evaluation of energy consumption, emissions, differ-
ent materials and building components, technical and construction
solutions, innovative energy systems to decrease the environmen-
tal impact.
2. Passive house standard
Passive house refers to a specific construction standard defin-
ing a category of buildings with a very low-energy consumptions
and good inner comfort conditions. The term passive means that
the external heat gains from solar radiation and the internal ones
from occupants, lights, equipment and machineries (internal heat
gains) are sufficient to keep the building at the desired temperature
throughout the heating period. Energy efficiency solutions can be
easily integrated in the design of dwellings, because they do not
differ significantly from the ones used in current buildings in terms
of esthetics and construction techniques [11].
In passive houses, the energy demand for heating should be
lower than 15 kWh/m2 year, which is about 85% less than a standard
house built according to Law 10/91 in Italy. This kind of con-
struction allows reducing up to 90% the energy demand of the
typical Central European building stock and over 75% of the aver-
age energy demand of new buildings that comply with the most
advanced European regulations. Large energy savings have also
been demonstrated in warm climates, where typical buildings also
require active cooling. Passive house standard ensures comfortable
inner conditions both in summer and in winter; these houses make
efficient use of the sun, internal heat sources and heat recovery,
allowing to supply the residual thermal demand, for example, with
a heat pump [11].
The passive house concept was first developed in Sweden,
from collaboration between Bo Adamson of Lund University and
Dr. Wolfgang Feist. This type of buildings were mainly built in
Germany (the first passive house was built in 1991 in Darmstadt-
Kranichstein by Dr. Feist; the energy demand amounts to an
average of 10 kWh/m2 year and has remained stable for 15 years),
Netherlands and Northern European Countries, while the first
application of this concept in Italy started few years ago. The term
“passive” emphasizes that in the building: interventions of active
plants, powered by fossil fuels or electricity (e.g. traditional boilers
or air conditioning units), are minimized; exploitation of solar radi-
ation and internal heat gains are maximized, as well as the recovery
from exhaust air by means of high efficiency heat exchangers.
Table 1
PassivHaus standards [59].
Energy demand for heating ≤15 kWh/m2 year
Energy demand for cooling ≤15 kWh/m2 year
Primary energy for heating, cooling, hot water <120 kWh/m2 year
and electricity
Thermal bridges  ≤ 0.01 W/m K
Façade thermal transmittance
Walls U < 0.15 W/m2 K
Windows Uw ≤ 0.8 W/m2 K
Heat recovery (annual average value) ≥80%
Airtightness 0.2 < n50 < 0.6 h−1
No. of air changes, considering a pressure
gradient of 50 Pa between inside and outside
Efficiency of heat recovery exchanger rc ≥ 75%
Air flux Oriented balanced < (±5)%
Air changes 30–40 m3 /h/person
The PassivHaus standards place restrictions on various well-
defined energy parameters of the building; the main characteristics
are listed in Table 1.
3. Life Cycle Assessment
The “Life Cycle Assessment is a method of evaluation of the
environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or activ-
ity by identifying and quantifying energy and materials used and
wastes released into the environment; and to identify and evalu-
ate opportunities to affect environmental improvements” [12]. This
approach determines the shift from a separate study of individual
elements of production processes, to an overall view, where all the
processes of transformation, starting from raw material extraction
to end-of-life disposal (“cradle to grave”, addressing to the high-
est degree of environmental sustainability “cradle to cradle” by
reuse/recycling), are considered for the achievement of the specific
final function. The application of LCA methodology does not guar-
antee a reduction of emissions or energy consumption, but it allows
highlighting the weak points of production process and identify-
ing possible improvements of technology and management in the
perspective of sustainable development.
Moreover, the personal nature of some choices made in LCA
has to be remarked: models used for inventory or environmental
impact assessments are limited by assumptions that they implicitly
include. A LCA is a scientific model, a simplification of a physical
system, therefore a complete representation of any effect on the
environment can not be reached; the accuracy of a LCA depends
on availability, accessibility and quality of relevant information
[13,14].
The assessment includes all the activities, processes, by-
products connected to the system analyzed, including raw material
processing, production, maintenance, recycling and disposal.
According to the ISO 14040 and 14044 [15,16], an LCA study is
divided into four main areas:
1. Goal and scope definition: in this phase the investigated product,
the system boundaries and the data sources are described; the
functional unit used in the analysis is defined as well.
2. Life Cycle Inventory – LCI: an objective, data-based process
of quantifying energy and raw material requirements, air
emissions, waterborne effluents, solid waste and other environ-
mental releases incurred throughout the life cycle of a product,
process or activity.
3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment – LCIA: a technical, quantitative
and/or qualitative process to characterize and assess the effects
of the environmental loadings identified in the inventory com-
ponent.
4. Life Cycle Improvement: a systematic assessment of the needs
and opportunities to reduce environmental burdens associated
 Author's personal copy
S. Proietti et al. / Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 463–472
Fig. 1. Passive house “Fontana”, Perugia, Italy.
Source: http://www.architettomasciarelli.com.
with energy and raw materials use and waste emissions through-
out the whole life cycle of a product process or activity.
4. Description of the case study: passive house “Fontana”
The LCA study presented in this paper was aimed at inves-
tigating the environmental impact of a passive house, built
in a seismic temperate zone near Perugia, in central Italy
(Fig. 1). The project, designed by the architect and owner Arch.
Francesco Masciarelli, seeks to implement the best principles of
the constructive-technological culture: philosophical and esoteric
models of sustainable design were used in building a contemporary
home. The overall design provides to reduce environmental impact
and strict adherence to the demands and needs of the occupants,
rather than only being in compliance with the requirements of
the standard for optimization of energy consumption. The building
also meets the criteria of environmental sustainability and bio-
architecture. It was realized with the use of different construction
materials: cement, steel and wood, to optimize its performance
without using a predefined structural scheme. The energy model
of the passive house was reviewed in a pragmatic way in light of
the temperate zone and seismic area.
The main body of the structure consists of two buildings, divided
by a central space: the biggest one was studied applying LCA
methodology, while two apartments are included in the other one.
The main features of the dwelling are summarized in Table 2.
The construction process preserved the existing olive trees, with
a minimization of works: part of the land and the stones that were
removed are reused on the site, maintaining a high level of perme-
ability of all the exposed parts (through the use of vegetation and
gravel paving). The dwelling has a predominant use of mechanical
equipment based on the maximum possible use of passive inputs,
integrated with the self-produced electricity from a photovoltaic
system (CIGS), and the use of other renewable energy sources.
Table 2
Building features.
Type of building Dwelling
Gross volume 750 m3
Reference area 251.6 m2
Ground area 155.2 m2
First floor area 83.7 m2
Total floor area (internal space) 320 m2
Total floor area (external space) 75 m2
Glass surfaces 30.1 m2
Occupants 5
465
Fig. 2. Structural model.
From the architectural and structural points of view, the project
is characterized by: curved wooden porch oriented Southwards;
shading elements on the Southern side, ensuring the protection
from solar radiation in summer, when the sunrays have a higher
tilt degree, and the use of arcades for uncertain weather condi-
tions; big aluminum wall facing the road, as a protection for the
buildings; ventilated façades and roofs, with reduced need of main-
tenance; dry construction technique for internal and external walls,
to minimize the drying time and to reduce maintenance costs;
use of natural recycled and/or recyclable construction materials
for the insulation and finishing; aerated foundations for moisture
control; empty space on the North side, to separate the build-
ing from an embankment. The structural model is mixed (Fig. 2):
light-weight structure, to reduce the mass of floors, roofs and
exterior cladding, through the adoption of frame construction
technique, wooden beams, panels and planks on steel supports;
stiffening elements in reinforced concrete and steel structures, for
ensuring adequate stability and for minimizing the kinematical
motion possibly caused by an earthquake (the construction area
has a high seismic activity) or other extreme natural events; all
structural components with significant influence in terms of heat
losses were insulated and/or joined with thermal cut systems (e.g.
thermal adhesive); double volume with a loft made of glass and
steel.
The adoption of insulating materials, control systems for
thermo-hygrometric phenomena, energy efficiency solutions con-
cerns various construction elements:
• The main structure in reinforced concrete and steel, and the sec-
ondary in wood, are the basic frames for attaching the building
envelope (roof and exterior walls), consisting of natural treated
wood frames, wooden planks or panels and wooden fiber insu-
lating layers, with variable density in relation to exposure.
• Windows have a mixed frame, wood inside and aluminum out-
side, with interposed insulating material for the thermal break
(Uw < 0.90 W/m2 K), low emission triple glazed (4-12-4-12-4)
with variable gases depending on exposure.
• For heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), the building
is equipped with a mechanical ventilation system coupled with a
Canadian well and a high-efficiency heat recovery exchanger. The
integration of the thermal-vector fluid is ensured by an electric
heat pump (5.75 kWt , COP 4.56). Hot sanitary water is produced
by no. 3 solar thermal collectors installed on the roof (6 m2 , sup-
plying about 80% of the heat demand); the heat pump provides
the necessary integration. A 500 l tank is installed as storage.
• A photovoltaic system (CIGS thin film, 128 panels, 68 m2 , 6.4 kWp )
is entirely integrated into the curved roof; the potential pro-
duction covers the electricity demand of the residential unit.
An electric plant integrated with a building automation system
enables to optimize and monitor consumptions, as well as a
wiring reduction with positive effects in terms of indoor elec-
tromagnetic pollution. Moreover this plant implements several
functions for an active control of climate, as the adjustment of
shading elements. Internal and external lighting devices and all
home appliances are high efficiency and energy saving.
 Author's personal copy

466 S. Proietti et al. / Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 463–472

The project is based on the following principles of eco- Table 3

Life cycle phases, subsystems and data sources.
environmental sustainability:
Life cycle phase Subsystem Source of data
• Integration within the context of reference and the surrounding Envelope and Quantities estimated from building
environment. Pre-utilization plants materials drawings, direct measurements,
• Water cycle management. cooperation with the
designer/owner, technical data,
Roof and sheds are connected to a system of tanks (50 m3 ); spe-
literature [26,27,60]
cific filtering devices are installed in order to make the rainwater Transportation Cooperation with the
usable. Storage capacity is sufficient for internal and external uses designer/owner, technical data
for a period of approximately 2 months (without rainfall). So more Construction Direct measurements, cooperation
process with the technical director,
complex and expensive technical treatment of sewage and gray
literature
waters (phyto-purification) are unnecessary. [5,17–19,22,26,27,31,60,61]
• Construction materials.
Energy use Passive House Planning Package
Among multiple choices, selection of construction materials Utilization
(PHPP), statistical data [2], direct
was carried out on the basis of following criteria: priority of uti- measurements
lization; function; LCA; natural source; production site (in terms Maintenance Literature data
of distance); recycling/recyclability; maintenance. Some exam- [2,5,7,17–19,22,26,27,31,60]
ples: recyclable galvanized steel components; certified wooden End-of-life Dismantling, Literature data
beams and elements; ecological protection treatments for wood; demolition, [7,19,22,26,45,55,56,60,62,63]
certified thermo-insulating panels in natural wood; internal recycling/reuse/landfill
soundproof panel made in recycled and recyclable polystyrene
fiber; certified recyclable plasterboard panels for internal finish;
waterproofing treatments of floors and terraces; outdoor floors
described in the previous section; (2) to assess the environ-
made in certified, recycled and recyclable stone; internal floors
mental benefit due to the use of recycled materials already in
made in certified wood, laid with no adhesive on a recycled
pre-production phase; (3) to assess the effect of a photovoltaic sys-
soundproof layer; recycled and recyclable plastic elements for
tem on environmental indicators, performing a balance between
floors over ground.
the impacts of production, maintenance and disposal of the plant,
• Waste management.
and the avoided emissions relative to electricity produced from
Waste production in building site was lower than standard; a
renewable solar source; (4) to evaluate the real benefits of the
selected disposal operation was carried out for some wastes (e.g.
building disassembly phase with recycling/reusing methods.
packaging).
The lifetime chosen in this paper was 70 years, which is com-
• Control of energy needs for thermal and hygrometric comfort.
mon for life cycle studies of new low-energy consumption buildings
• Control of energy needs for visual comfort.
[17–21]. The study examines the environmental impact of the
building whole life cycle, from material production to the disposal
Each room has windows and furnishings of particular sizes that and recycling/reusing processes: a detailed LCA was carried out
make artificial lighting unnecessary during daylight hours. to analyze the material’s contribution, in order to determine the
All design data were entered into PHPP – Passive House Plan- choices affecting the design phase. The functional unit of the analy-
ning Package (2009 version),1 an important tool for designing sis, referring to residential buildings [19,22], was one square meter
passive houses consisting of a spreadsheet workbook and a man- of the living area for a period of 1 year (1 m2 /year); this enables
ual. The PHPP provides everything needed to design a properly comparisons with other similar studies. The dwelling heated useful
functioning house including tools for: calculating energy balances surface is 251.6 m2 (“Reference area”).
(including U-value calculation), planning the windows, designing Boundaries of the system are: ground and first floors, entrance
the comfort ventilation system, determining the heating load, esti- ramp and two external stairs. On a time scale, three phases were
mating the summer comfort, design the heating and hot water considered: production and building process (pre-utilization), uti-
supply. Energy simulation results in an energy demand for heat- lization and end-of-life, including input of energy and fossil fuel,
ing and cooling respectively equal to 11 and 2 kWh/m2 year, a and output of wastes and energy production [23,24].
primary energy consumption (for heating, cooling, hot water and
electricity) of 50 kWh/m2 year and an air tightness of 0.47 vol/h,
verified through a Blower Door Test according to the UNI EN 13829 5.2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
standard.
In order to organize the inventory, all the data gathered were The inventory activities were divided into three main phases, as
grouped into several categories: basements, vertical structures, explained in Table 3:
floors, roof, external walls, interior walls, stairs and loft, flooring,
surface lining, insulation, windows and doors (for the envelope);
• Pre-utilization: from the extraction, transportation and produc-
water plant, wiring and lighting, HVAC (for the plants).
tion of all materials, to the building construction (including inputs
of energy and output of wastes).
5. Life cycle modeling • Utilization: occupation of the dwelling (70 years of life time) with
the electric consumptions (winter heating and pumping, ventila-
5.1. Goals and system boundaries
tion, domestic hot water, use of appliances, refrigerating, cooking,
lightning, washing, other electric uses) and the ordinary mainte-
Main goals of the research work are: (1) to evaluate impacts
nance (including the outputs of wastes and energy production
and contribution of materials over the life cycle of the building
provided by photovoltaic system).
• End-of-life: from the selective and controlled demolition process
to the waste treatments (reuse, recycling and landfilling of mate-
1
PHPP web site: http://www.passiv.de/. rials at the end of the building life cycle).
 Author's personal copy
S. Proietti et al. / Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 463–472
Fig. 3. Composition of building envelope, in terms of weight.
For the pre-utilization phase, type and amount (kg) of materials
making up the building envelope and plants have been calcu-
lated, as well as distances and type of transportation, and waste
factors due to the building process. Inventory results in 591 pro-
cesses, each one characterized by: quantities of materials, database
entry in SimaPro software,2 distances and transportation typology,
percentage of waste production, amount of material needed for
the maintenance; it is necessary to highlight that the materials
were grouped in general categories, e.g. concrete, steel bars, etc.
Data gathering lasted 6 months [25], starting from building draw-
ings, on-site measurements, cooperation with the designer/owner
(material supply invoices were available to be analyzed), technical
data and LCA literature.
All references of SimaPro model belong to the ecoinvent
database,3 except for CIGS thin film panels installed on the roof.
The reference for the PV life cycle was found in the study con-
ducted under the project SENSE – Sustainability EvaluatioN on Solar
Energy systems4 [26,27], funded by the European Commission in
the Fifth Framework Program “Energy, environment and sustain-
able development”. The project, lasted from January 2003 to June
2006, provided the LCAs of three film technologies: CIGS, a-Si and
CdTe, including goal and scope definition, life cycle modeling and
impact assessment of production, use and recycling. Results for
CIGS solar cells (functional unit: 1 kWp ; GWP100 1340 kg CO2 eq.,
NRE 23,056 MJ, GER 26,850 MJ) were modified by a proper factor
to consider a power of 6.4 kWp and added at the end of the LCA
performed by SimaPro [28].
Fig. 3 shows the percentage distribution of materials mak-
ing up the building envelope: the concrete is the prevailing one
(61%), followed by unreinforced concrete, used for the foundation
(21%), in accordance with other LCA studies of similar low-energy
buildings [29,30]. The house is located in a seismic area, thus the
whole amount of concrete and cement generally used for a typi-
cal dwelling is increased by 20% to reinforce the structure against
earthquakes. Timber is the main component of external walls and
roof, and reaches about 4% of total weight. Wood fiber (15.16 ton)
used as insulating material for building envelope is 2%; the value
exceeds the quantities required for the insulation of traditional
buildings [31,32], but it is strictly needed to match PassivHaus stan-
dards, even in Mediterranean climate. The gypsum plasterboards,
approximately 3%, represent a significant contribution of the total
amount of weight. Fig. 4 refers to a similar analysis, focused on
HVAC, hydraulic and electric plants.
2
SimaPro software web site: http://www.pre.nl/simapro/.
3
Ecoinvent database web site: http://www.ecoinvent.ch/.
4
SENSE project web site: http://www.sense-eu.net/.
467
Fig. 4. Composition of building plants, in terms of weight.
Information about distances (km) for transportation of material
to the construction site was collected analyzing the material sup-
ply invoices; indications concerning the means of transportation is
given, reporting the maximum capacity, e.g. 3.5 ton van, 16, 28 or
32 ton trucks, ships.
During the building process, construction waste factor was set
between 3% and 10% on the basis of literature data [5,18,22,33–35]
and according to the quantity of scraps that each material can pro-
duce, with the exception of finished products (e.g. windows or
doors), which do not need further processing. Energy consumptions
due to building process and assembling of materials were evaluated
on the basis of two contributions: handling of 721.66 m3 soil and
electricity for machineries/lightning, measured by a specific meter
at 979.80 kWhe .
In the utilization phase, occupants’ energy consumptions and
maintenance of materials for a lifetime of 70 years were taken
into account. Electricity is the only energy source of the dwelling;
energy consumptions for winter heating and hot sanitary water
production have been initially estimated through PHPP – Pas-
sive House Planning Package. Consumptions for cooking appliances,
lightning, washing, etc., were estimated on the basis of energy
and environmental statistics of the Italian National Agency for
new technologies, energy and sustainable economic development
– ENEA [36]. The heat demand for hot sanitary water production,
distribution and accumulation is equal to 3395 kWh/year, calcu-
lated starting from a request of 60 ◦ C hot water equal to 25 l per
person per day; solar source contributes 2846 kWh, satisfying 84%
of the total demand.
This preliminary information was compared with real con-
sumptions recorded during 2011 and used for LCA; results are
summarized in Table 4. Monitored electricity consumption is
equal to 21.5 kWhe /m2 year, different from the calculated value
(18.8 kWhe /m2 year); the same table presents the comparison
between the estimation and the real renewable electricity produc-
tion of the 6.4 kWp PV system, which helps to considerably reduce
energy consumption of the utilization phase. Table 5 reports energy
consumption data monitored during 2011 and divided by final uses;
values are related to a heated useful area of 251.6 m2 .
Maintenance processes during the lifetime of the dwelling are
also considered. Indications concerning replacement factors of
materials/devices/plants refer to specific literature [5,17–19,31].
Three steps of a selective demolition model were adopted
in the end-of-life phase: de-construction and separation of
reusable/recyclable fraction; controlled demolition of structures
with pneumatic drills and mechanical pincers; waste treatments
including lorry loading with mechanical digger, transportation and
final treatment (recycling/reusing/landfill). Detailed indications
about the end-of-life stages are presented in Table 6 [20,37–44];
steel, concrete, ceramics, aluminum and glass are supposed to be
 Author's personal copy

468 S. Proietti et al. / Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 463–472

Table 4
Comparison between estimated and measured energy consumption/PV production, utilization phase.

Electricity [kWhe /m2 year] [kWhe /year] [kWhe /lifetime]

Estimated 18.8 4730 331,106

Consumption
Measured (2011) 21.5 5409 378,658

Estimated 31.0 7799 500,920

PV production
Measured (2011) 28.4 7156 545,972

Table 5 second methodology has been developed top-down, starting with

Monitored energy consumptions for final uses, 2011, utilization phase.
weighting and from there developing damage models for the
USE [kWhe /m2 year] [kWhe /year] [kWhe /lifetime] following impact categories: human health; ecosystem quality;
Heating and pumping 4.7 1187 83,119 resources. Their scores could not be compared since they are
Ventilation (winter 5.0 1253 87,689 expressed with different units; so each value is multiplied by a
and summer) factor to make them dimensionless and weighted again; the sum
Hot sanitary water 0.5 114 7972 results in a “single score”, expressed in Pt, which represents the
Cooking 2.7 683 47,830
overall impact of the system.
Refrigeration 1.8 456 31,887
Washing 1.6 410 28,698 The general results of Life Cycle Assessment (Table 8), subdi-
Lighting 2.2 558 39,062 vided for the three phases, show that:
Use of appliances 1.6 399 27,901
Cooling 1.4 350 24,500
• Pre-utilization phase (extraction, transportation, production,
Total 21.5 5409 378,658
assembling of building envelope and plants; building process)
is characterized by a GER equal to 319 MJ/m2 year, of which
recycled at 100% in different ways: for instance the concrete from non-renewable energy consumption for 225 MJ/m2 year, and
demolition may be reused as aggregate in a sub-base layer in street a GWP100 of 16 kg CO2 eq/m2 year. Most renewable energy in
pavements [45–47]. Table 7 summarizes the consumptions related pre-utilization phase is associated to biomass of the building
to every stage. In particular: transportation units are denoted by the envelope, particularly to the huge amount of wood fiber for ther-
term t*km, which expresses the product of the amount of material mal insulation [46,48].
(in tons) times the distance (in kilometers); consumptions due to • Utilization phase: energy consumption expressed by GER is very
handling processes, loading with mechanical pincers and demoli- different from traditional buildings, where it represents about
tion with hydraulic hammers are calculated on the basis of material 90% of the whole life cycle [49]. In this case the performance of the
volume. High electricity consumption of the grinder compared to highly insulated building envelope drastically reduces the elec-
that of the deconstruction and the main contribution to transporta- tricity consumptions during the utilization, though the impacts
tion due to the concrete have to be noted. on the pre-utilization phase increase (due to insulating mate-
rial). Negative GER value is also explained by the presence of a
5.3. Life Cycle Inventory Assessment (LCIA) 6 kWp PV system [34,50,51], which produces more energy than
the house consumes. So the utilization phase becomes a virtuous
SimaPro software and ecoinvent database implement sev- process, as confirmed by the other indicators too. Not consid-
eral methods for the assessment of above described inventory; ering the renewable energy generation, GER would increase till
among them, EPD 2007 and Eco-indicator 99 have been chosen. 251.28 MJ/m2 year, reaching a value similar to pre-utilization one.
The first one includes the characterization stage and the eval- • End-of-life phase represents a significant benefit in term of GER
uation is carried out on six damage categories: Gross Energy and NRE, with values of one third of the pre-utilization ones: the
Requirement (GER), Non-Renewable Energy consumption (NRE), choice of a steel structure and the absence of brick wall allows to
Global Warming (GWP), Eutrophication (EP), Acidification Poten- operate a selective deconstruction, with a significant reduction
tial (AP), Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP). The of impacts at the end of life time.

Table 6
End-of-life stages.

Material I stage II stage III stage

De-construction Demolition Waste treatment

Steel structure 95% recycling 5% recycling –

Steel bars – 70% recycling 30% recycling
Concrete, concrete not reinforced, ceramics – – 100% recycling
Sawn timber 90% reusing 10% recycling –
Glued laminated timber 100% landfill – –
Plywood 100% landfill – –
OSB timber 100% landfill – –
MDF timber 100% landfill – –
Natural timber (larch) 95% reusing 5% recycling –
Wood wool 90% reusing 10% recycling –
Polyurethane, polystyrene, 80% landfill – 20% landfill
Aluminum 100% recycling – –
Glass 100% recycling – –
Gypsum + Kraft paper 100% landfill – –
Polypropylene (sheets) 100% landfill – –
Polyethylene HDPE – 80% recycling 20% landfill
Gravel – 80% reusing 20% landfill
Residual waste after I and II stages – – 100% landfill
 Author's personal copy

S. Proietti et al. / Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 463–472 469

Table 7
End-of-life consumptions.

End-of-life stage Unit Quantity

Electricity [kWhe ] 196.0

Selective
Handling and loading with mechanical pincers [m3 ] 182.9
de-construction
Transport to recovery sites [t*km] 100.4*20

Demolition with hydraulic hammers [m3 ] 188.9

Controlled demolition Loading with mechanical pincers [m3 ] 38.5
Transport [t*km] 28.3*20

Loading of hopper [m3 ] 339.2

Waste treatments Electricity for grinder [kWhe ] 1052.6
Transport of recovered material [t*km] 350*20

Fig. 6. Contribution assessment: “building envelope” components during pre-

utilization phase.

(as insulation) reduce their relative contributions, as 78% of their

Fig. 5. Contribution assessment: subsets during the life cycle.
• The sum of contributions due to utilization and end-of-life phases
balances over 90% of impacts associated to non-virtuous pro-
cesses, in terms of GER and NRE, and 60% of GWP100.
Assessing the contribution of each process to the impact cate-
gories during the entire life cycle, a significant reduction is due to
the end-of-life phase (5–20%) and to the production of electricity
from PV system (50–65%), as above mentioned (Fig. 5). The “build-
ing” subset covers over 40% of each indicator, while the energy
consumptions for heating and other uses represent about 20%, a
much lower percentage than in traditional dwellings. Moreover
the maintenance is responsible of 10–18% of impact, transportation
4–5%, construction process 2–4%.
Focusing on the building envelope in the pre-utilization phase
(Fig. 6), concrete basements are responsible of the main impact,
reaching 27% of GER; other important contributions are associ-
ated to roof (18%), floors (10%) and external walls (12%). Examining
the GWP100 indicators, the relative impact of concrete basements
exceeds 70%, while the subsystems made of timber and wood fiber
energy load is covered by renewable sources. Concrete basements
and load-bearing walls were necessary in order to comply with
current technical regulations for building in a seismic area, which
is very different from typical regions where PassivHaus are usually
built; hence this paper may contribute to evaluate the impact vari-
ation due to a larger quantity of concrete used for specific stability
requirements.
A detailed analysis of the utilization phase shows that heat-
ing and “other uses” contribute as much as 21% of GER and 25%
of GWP100, while the maintenance phase reaches 16% and 12%,
respectively. All the uses included into “other uses” category were
evaluated in detail: in particular hot sanitary water productions
covers just 5% of total GER (38.92 MJ/m2 year), because 84% of the
demand is supplied by the solar thermal system; 30% is due to elec-
trical induction kitchen, chosen for this dwelling in order to avoid
the connection to the natural gas grid.
The influence of end-of-life phase on the whole life cycle is clearly
highlighted by comparing two different demolitions scenarios:
recycling/reusing or landfilling (Fig. 7). Recycling/reusing processes
lead to a negative value of GER, affecting pre-utilization and utiliza-
tion phases too, because they consider different choices of disposal
concerning respectively the construction site and the mainte-
nance of materials. Through a process of selective disassembly, the

Table 8
General LCA results.

Indicator Unit/m2 year Pre-utilization Utilization End-of-life Total life cycle

GER [MJ] 319.76 −173.11 −121.63 25.02

NRE [MJ] 224.72 −135.90 −76.91 11.91
GWP100 [kg CO2 eq.] 16.40 −9.29 −1.62 5.49
POCP [kg C2 H4 eq.] 1.00E−02 −2.61E−03 −3.45E−03 3.98E−03
AP [kg SO2 eq.] 6.38E−02 −6.23E−02 −1.00E−04 1.38E−03
EP [kg PO4 3− eq.] 1.46E−02 4.40E−03 −1.48E−03 1.75E−02

ECO-INDICATOR 99 [Pt] 1.6902 −0.2931 −0.4133 9.48E−01

 Author's personal copy

470 S. Proietti et al. / Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 463–472

Table 9
LCA results with recycled materials in the pre-utilization phase.

Indicator Unit/m2 year Pre-utilization Utilization End-of-life Total life cycle Variation in
pre-utilization [%]

GER [MJ] 299.62 −173.11 −121.63 4.87 −6.3

NRE [MJ] 199.78 −135.90 −76.91 −8.09 −8.9
GWP100 [kg CO2 eq.] 16.04 −9.29 −1.62 5.12 −2.2
POCP [kg C2 H4 eq.] 1.00E−02 −2.61E−03 −3.45E−03 3.98E−03 0
AP [kg SO2 eq.] 6.11E−02 −6.23E−02 −1.00E−04 −1.37E−03 −4.3
EP [kg PO4 3− eq.] 1.46E−02 4.40E−03 −1.48E−03 1.75E−02 0

ECO-INDICATOR 99 [Pt] 1.6378 −0.2931 −0.4133 9.31E−01 −3.1

impact associated to the entire life cycle decreases from 272 to

25 MJ/m2 year, an improvement of 90% if compared to “100% land-
filling” option [52]; in terms of GWP100, the reduction is equal to
87%, passing from 44 to 6 kg CO2 eq./m2 year [53].
Fig. 8 shows the comparison during the utilization phase
between the LCA results considering or not the installation of the
PV system and its renewable electricity production. In an entire life
cycle perspective with a recycling/reusing scenario, the impacts
decreases from 341 to 25 MJ/m2 year in terms of GER, and from
30 to 5.49 kg CO2 eq/m2 year in terms of GWP100: PV production
reduces drastically the energy consumption and consequently the
impacts of the dwelling (80–90%), especially if integrated with an
intelligent use of the materials and insulation.

5.4. Environmental improvement

Fig. 8. Contribution assessment: PV renewable electricity production during uti-
lization phase, in terms of GER and GWP100.
Through “Avoided Process” methodology, a specific simulation
was performed in order to have results of the model closer to the
reality, in particular taking into account recycled materials used
(insulation). The choice of these materials, representing 1.7% of
for building construction (pre-utilization phase): polypropylene
total weight, produces a reduction in global impacts reaching 9%
molds (for under ground-floor space), cement sealing matrix (for
in terms of NRE (as shown in Table 9).
paving), crushed stone, polyester fiber (insulation), polyurethane
The software is generally used to analyze the environmental
impacts caused by processes for which recycling/reusing phases
may be predicted; instead an already recycled process (at source)
could not be entered. International scientific community has not yet
cleared up effectively this issue [54]; in-depth studies concerning
these aspects should be carried out.

6. Discussion and conclusions

Sustainable architecture, which includes control of energy flows

Fig. 7. Contribution assessment: comparison between two end-of-life scenarios, in
terms of GER (a) and GWP100 (b).
between the ambient and the built environment to optimize energy
consumption and to reduce the environmental impact, requires
an integrated design, with a multistage and integral view of the
building-plant system during the whole life cycle [55–58]. For this
purpose, methodological and operative tools are necessary, aimed
at matching all the aspects involved in decision-making process,
in order to build dwellings whose individual parts contribute in a
synergistic and organic way to the welfare of people and safeguard
the environment, by means of a rational use of energy.
In the research described in present paper a LCA was completed,
in order to investigate the environmental impact of a passive house,
built in a seismic temperate zone near Perugia, in central Italy. The
case study represents a mix of advanced technological solutions
in the building envelope, recycled materials, reuse of the rainwa-
ter, reduced energy consumption, renewable energy utilization,
intelligent use of the insulation. An integrated approach during the
design phase allowed complying with the requirements necessary
to obtain the PassivHaus certification, a housing standard that could
help reducing environmental impact as the LCA describes.
The model traces the whole life cycle of the “building prod-
uct” through a “cradle to cradle” approach, according to ISO
14040-14044. All life cycle phases were analyzed: raw material
 Author's personal copy
S. Proietti et al. / Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 463–472
extraction, production, transportation, building process, occupa-
tion/use, selective and controlled de-construction, waste handling
and treatment. The incidence of the various phases over the entire
life cycle in terms of environmental impacts was calculated by the
LCA. The sum of contributions of the PV system in the end-of-life
phase causes a reduction of GER higher than 80%, and of GWP100
higher than 70%; in particular the choice of a recycling/reusing sce-
nario after a virtuous selective deconstruction reduces the impacts
from 5 to 20%, while electricity production from renewable sources
may cause a further decrease in the range of 50–65%. Excluding
PV energy production, the utilization phase with winter heating
and “other uses” (electrical appliances, cooling, lighting, wash-
ing, cooking, hot sanitary water) reaches 20–25% of the overall
impact (unlike traditional building where the percentage is equal
to 80–90%), maintenance phase 10–18%, building envelope 45–52%,
plants 3–9%, transportation 4–5%, construction process 2–5%.
Focusing on the building envelope in pre-utilization phase, con-
crete basements are responsible of the main impact, reaching 27%
of GER, while the insulating materials contributes for 9% of total
amount (the wood wool contributes with 15 ton). With reference
to GWP100, the relative impact of concrete basements exceeds
70%, while the subsystems made of timber and wood fiber reduce
their relative contributions as 78% of their energy load is cov-
ered by renewable sources. A detailed analysis of the utilization
phase shows that heating and ventilation contribute to 21% of
GER and 25% of GWP100, while the maintenance phase reaches
16% and 12%, respectively. The choice of a selective and controlled
de-construction allows to recycle and reuse efficiently the 95% of
materials; this causes a reduction of impacts if compared with 100%
landfilling option: 90% of GER and 87% of GWP100.
References
[1] O. Ortiz-Rodríguez, F. Castells, G. Sonnemann, Sustainability in the con-
struction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA,
Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 28–39, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.11.012.
[2] A. Mahdavi, E.M. Doppelbauer, A performance comparison of passive
and low-energy buildings, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 1314–1319,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.025.
[3] Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Eco-
nomic Development (ENEA), Energy and Environmental Report 2007–2008,
ENEA, Rome, Italy, 2009, available at: http://www.enea.it/ (accessed
28.12.2012).
[4] O. Ortiz-Rodríguez, F. Castells, G. Sonnemann, Life Cycle Assessment of two
dwellings: one in Spain, a developed country, and one in Colombia, a country
under development, Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010) 2435–2443,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.02.021.
[5] K. Adalberth, Energy use during the life cycle of single unit
dwellings: examples, Building and Environment 32 (1997) 321–329,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(96)00069-8.
[6] S. Kotaji, A. Schuurmans, S. Edwards, Life Cycle Assessment in Building and
Construction: A State of the Art Report, Society of Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry (SETAC), 2003.
[7] L. Gustavsson, A. Joelsson, Life cycle primary energy analysis of residen-
tial buildings, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 210–220, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.08.017.
[8] A. Utama, S.H. Gheewala, Life cycle energy of single landed houses in
Indonesia, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1911–1916, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.04.017.
[9] I. Sartori, A.G. Hestnes, Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-
energy buildings: a review article, Energy and Buildings 39 (2007) 249–257,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.07.001.
[10] S. Thiers, B. Peuportier, Thermal and environmental assessment of a passive
building equipped with an earth-to-air heat exchanger in France, Solar Energy
82 (2008) 820–831, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.02.014.
[11] European Program SAVE Intelligent Energy, Passive-On Project for Promot-
ing Passive Houses and the PassivHaus Standard in Warm Climates, 1st
January 2005–30th September 2007, available at: http://www.passive-on.org
(accessed 28.12.2012).
[12] Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Guidelines for
Life Cycle Assessment: A “Code of Practice”, 1993.
[13] European Commission, Joint Research Centre JRC, Institute for Environ-
ment and Sustainability IES, International Reference Life Cycle Data System
(ILCD), Handbook – General Guide for Life Cycle Assessment – Detailed
471
Guidance, Publications Office of the European Union, 2010, available at:
http://lct.jrc.ec.europa.eu (accessed 28.12.2012).
[14] E.G. Hertwich, Life cycle approaches to sustainable consumption: a crit-
ical review, Environmental Science & Technology 39 (2005) 4673–4684,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es0497375.
[15] UNI EN ISO 14040, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Principles and Framework, 2006.
[16] UNI EN ISO 14044, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment –
Requirements and Guidelines, 2006.
[17] C. Scheuer, G.A. Keoleia, P. Reppe, Life cycle energy and environ-
mental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges
and design implications, Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 1049–1064,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(03)00066-5.
[18] D. Kellenberger, H. Althaus, Relevance of simplifications in LCA of
building components, Building and Environment 44 (2009) 818–825,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.06.002.
[19] G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo, The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and
materials in the LCA of low energy buildings, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010)
869–880, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.009.
[20] L. Gustavsson, A. Joelsson, R. Sathre, Life cycle primary energy use and car-
bon emission of an eight-storey wood-framed apartment building, Energy and
Buildings 42 (2010) 230–242, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.08.018.
[21] I. Blom, L. Itard, A. Meijer, Environmental impact of dwellings in use: mainte-
nance of façade components, Building and Environment 45 (2010) 2526–2538,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.05.015.
[22] M.Z. Hauschild, Assessing environmental impacts in a life-cycle per-
spective, Environmental Science & Technology 39 (2005) 81–88,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es053190s.
[23] T. Ramesha, R. Prakasha, K.K. Shukla, Life cycle energy analysis of
buildings: an overview, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 1592–1600,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.007.
[24] O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of a com-
mercial office building in Thailand, International Journal of Life Cycle Assess-
ment 13 (2008) 498–511, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-008-0012-1.
[25] F. Castellani, Environmental Sustainability Evaluation of a PassivHaus in tem-
perate climate through life cycle assessment (LCA), University of Perugia, Italy,
2010 (MSc thesis).
[26] Sustainability EvaluatioN of Solar Energy systems (SENSE), LCA Analysis, 2008,
available at: http://www.sense-eu.net/ (accessed 28.12.2012).
[27] Sustainability EvaluatioN of Solar Energy systems (SENSE), Recycling of
Production Waste, 2002, available at: http://www.sense-eu.net/ (accessed
28.12.2012).
[28] V. Fthenakis, W. Wang, H. Chul Kim, Life Cycle Inventory analysis of the pro-
duction of metals used in photovoltaics, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 13 (2009) 493–517, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2007.11.012.
[29] M. Asif, T. Muneer, R. Kelley, Life Cycle Assessment: a case study of a
dwelling home in Scotland, Building and Environment 42 (2007) 1391–1394,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.11.023.
[30] N. Huberman, D. Pearlmutter, A life-cycle energy analysis of building
materials in the Negev desert, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 837–848,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.06.002.
[31] T.Y. Chen, J. Burnett, C.K. Chau, Analysis of embodied energy use in
the residential building of Hong Kong, Energy 26 (2001) 323–340,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-5442(01)00006-8.
[32] B.L.P. Peuportier, Life Cycle Assessment applied to the comparative evaluation
of single family houses in the French context, Energy and Buildings 33 (2001)
443–450, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00101-8.
[33] A. Utama, S.H. Gheewala, Indonesian residential high rise buildings: a
life cycle energy assessment, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 1263–1268,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.07.025.
[34] I.Z. Bribián, A.A. Usón, S. Scarpellini, Life Cycle Assessment in build-
ings: state-of-the-art and simplified LCA methodology as a complement
for building certification, Building and Environment 44 (2009) 2510–2520,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.05.001.
[35] G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo, A. Fiorenza, K. Zavaglia, Evaluation of Environmental
Sustainability of a Low-Energy Building Through LCA Methodology – Research
Report, Polytechnic of Turin, 2007, available at: http://www.studioroatta.it/
(accessed 28.12.2012).
[36] Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Eco-
nomic Development (ENEA), Energy and Environmental Report 2008, ENEA,
Rome, Italy, 2009, available at: http://www.enea.it (accessed 28.12.2012).
[37] D. Kolokotsa, D. Rovas, E. Kosmatopoulos, K. Kalaitzakis, A roadmap towards
intelligent net zero positive energy buildings, Solar Energy 85 (2011)
3067–3084, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.09.001.
[38] C.J. Engelsen, J. Mehus, C. Pade, D.H. Sæther, Carbon Dioxide Uptake in Demol-
ished and Crushed Concrete, Norwegian Building Research Institute, 2005,
available at: http://www.sintef.no/ (accessed 28.12.2012).
[39] I. Bekir Topcu, S. Sengel, Properties of concretes produced with waste
concrete aggregate, Cement and Concrete Research 34 (2004) 1307–1312,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.12.019.
[40] N. Dantata, A. Touran, J. Wang, An analysis of cost and duration for decon-
struction and demolition of residential buildings in Massachusetts, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 44 (2005) 1–15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2004.09.001.
[41] G. Rodriguez, F. Alegre, G. Martinez, The contribution of environmental
management systems to the management of construction and demolition
 Author's personal copy
472 S. Proietti et al. / Energy and Buildings 64 (2013) 463–472
waste: the case of the autonomous community of Madrid (Spain),
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 50 (2007) 334–349, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.06.008.
[42] N. Kartam, N. Al-Mutairi, I. Al-Ghusain, J. Al-Humoud, Environmental manage-
ment of construction and demolition waste in Kuwait, Waste Management 24
(2004) 1049–1059, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2004.06.003.
[43] C.J. Kibert, A.R. Chini, J. Languell, Implementing deconstruction in the United
States, in: C.J. Kibert, A.R. Chini (Eds.), Overview of Deconstruction in Selected
Countries, International Council for Research and Innovation in Building Con-
struction (CIB), Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 2000, pp. 181–239, available at:
http://www.iip.kit.edu/ (accessed 28.12.2012).
[44] C. Thormark, Conservation of energy and natural resources by recycling
building waste, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 33 (2001) 113–130,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00078-7.
[45] G.A. Blengini, Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a
case study in Turin, Italy, Building and Environment 44 (2009) 319–330,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.03.007.
[46] C. Thormark, The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling
potential of a building, Building and Environment 41 (2006) 1019–1026,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.026.
[47] A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, R. Sathre, Carbon implications of end-of-life manage-
ment of building materials, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 53 (2009)
276–286, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.12.007.
[48] B. Upton, R. Miner, M. Spinney, L.S. Heath, The greenhouse gas and
energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential con-
struction in the United States, Biomass and Bioenergy 32 (2008) 1–10,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.07.001.
[49] M. Kumar Dixit, J.L. Fernández-Solís, S. Lavy, C.H. Culp, Identification of parame-
ters for embodied energy measurement: a literature review, Energy and Build-
ings 42 (2010) 1238–1247, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.02.016.
[50] P. Hernandez, P. Kenny, From net energy to zero energy buildings: defining life
cycle zero energy buildings (LC-ZEB), Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 815–821,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.001.
[51] D.S. Parker, Very low energy homes in the United States: perspectives on
performance from measured data, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 512–520,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.11.017.
[52] F. Nemry, A. Uihlein, C.M. Colodel, C. Wetzel, A. Braune, B. Wittstock, I.
Hasan, J. Kreißig, N. Gallon, S. Niemeier, Y. Frech, Options to reduce the
environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European
Union: potential and costs, Energy and Buildings 42 (2010) 976–984,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.01.009.
[53] H. Arslan, Re-design, re-use and recycle of temporary houses, Build-
ing and Environment 42 (2007) 400–406, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2005.07.032.
[54] M. Lavagna, Life Cycle Assessment in Construction Sector: Design and
Build in a Perspective of Environmental Sustainability, Hoepli, Milan, Italy,
2008.
[55] C. Koroneos, G. Kottas, Energy consumption modeling analysis and envi-
ronmental impact assessment of model house in Thessaloniki – Greece,
Building and Environment 42 (2007) 122–138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2005.08.009.
[56] B. Polster, B. Peuportier, I.B. Sommereux, P.D. Pedregal, C. Gobin, E.
Durand, Evaluation of the environmental quality of buildings towards a
more environmentally conscious design, Solar Energy 57 (1996) 219–230,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(96)00071-0.
[57] G. Verbeeck, H. Hens, Life Cycle Inventory of buildings: a con-
tribution analysis, Building and Environment 45 (2010) 964–967,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.10.003.
[58] A. Dodoo, L. Gustavsson, R. Sathre, Life cycle primary energy implica-
tion of retrofitting a wood-framed apartment building to passive house
standard, Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1152–1160,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.03.010.
[59] A. Carotti, D. Madé, Passive House in Italy – Theory and Project of a “Passive
House” with Traditional Technology, Rockwool, Milan, Italy, 2006.
[60] O.F. Kofoworola, S.H. Gheewala, Life cycle energy assessment of a typi-
cal office building in Thailand, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 1076–1083,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.06.002.
[61] S. Citherlet, T. Defaux, Energy and environmental comparison of three variants
of a family house during its whole life span, Building and Environment 42 (2007)
591–598, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.09.025.
[62] M. Hauschild, J. Jeswiet, L. Alting, From Life Cycle Assessment to sustainable
production: status and perspectives, CIRP Annals: Manufacturing Technology
54 (2005) 1–21, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60017-1.
[63] C. Thormark, A low energy building in a life cycle – its embodied energy, energy
need for operation and recycling potential, Building and Environment 37 (2002)
429–435, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(01)00033-6.