Evaluation of life cycle carbon impacts for higher education building redevelopment: an archetype approach

An archetype-based approach was taken to generalise case study findings on the life cycle carbon impacts of higher education building redevelopment. For each archetype, the life cycle operational and embodied carbon impacts of carbon reduction interventions and building redevelopment options were analysed. The contribution of embodied carbon to total life cycle carbon impact was also evaluated. A database of English and Welsh university buildings was constructed comprising energy and geometry data. Six archetypes for pre-1985 buildings were then determined based on academic activity and servicing strategy. Buildings were synthesised for each archetype using case study data and the database geometry data. Life cycle carbon models following the BS EN 15978:2011 standard were constructed, calibrated using the database energy data and used to simulate carbon reduction interventions and new-build schemes. Various material systems were considered and design stage uncertainty was factored in. For new-build, average life cycle carbon savings ranged from 37 to 54%, exceeding the range of 25–33% for the best-case refurbishment options. However, in some cases the differences were only slight and within the range of uncertainty. Structural systems and building services dominated material impacts, the latter owing to replacement cycles. The generalised findings were used to provide guidance on higher education carbon management.

[1]  A. Wright,et al.  Targeting household energy-efficiency measures using sensitivity analysis , 2010 .

[2]  Raymond J. Cole,et al.  Life-cycle energy use in office buildings , 1996 .

[3]  Dejan Mumovic,et al.  Applying artificial neural networks to estimate building energy use in the early stages of architectural design , 2012 .

[4]  Communities Non-domestic Energy Performance Certificate data , 2017 .

[5]  Badea Nicolae,et al.  Life cycle analysis in refurbishment of the buildings as intervention practices in energy saving , 2015 .

[6]  Dejan Mumovic,et al.  Evaluation of life cycle carbon impacts for higher education building redevelopment: a multiple case study approach , 2017 .

[7]  Dp Hawkins,et al.  Life cycle carbon impact of higher education building redevelopment , 2016 .

[8]  Michael D. Lepech,et al.  Application of life-cycle assessment to early stage building design for reduced embodied environmental impacts , 2013 .

[9]  Dejan Mumovic,et al.  Determinants of energy use in UK higher education buildings using statistical and artificial neural network methods , 2012 .

[10]  H. Altan Energy efficiency interventions in UK higher education institutions , 2010 .

[11]  Edward Morofsky,et al.  A screening methodology for implementing cost effective energy retrofit measures in Canadian office , 2011 .

[12]  Akshay Gupta,et al.  Life cycle cost and carbon footprint of energy efficient refurbishments to 20th century UK school buildings , 2014 .

[13]  Jones,et al.  CIBSE review of energy benchmarks for Display Energy Cerificates , 2011 .

[14]  Philip Steadman,et al.  An Introduction to the National Non-Domestic Building Stock Database , 2000 .

[15]  Kendra Tupper,et al.  Pulling the Levers on Existing Buildings: A Simple Method for Calibrating Hourly Energy Models , 2010 .

[16]  Adolf Acquaye,et al.  Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—A review of current trends , 2013 .

[17]  Gregory A. Keoleian,et al.  Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modeling challenges and design implications , 2003 .

[18]  P. L. Gaspar,et al.  Embodied energy on refurbishment vs. demolition: A southern Europe case study , 2015 .