Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

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

Identification of the best material-energy-climate compatibility for five T

ecological houses and the contribution of their impact sources to the overall
balance
⁎
Dalel Kaoulaa, , Ammar Bouchairb
a
University BLIDA1, Institute of Architecture and Town Planning, B.P 270, Soumaa Road, Blida, Algeria
b
Department of Architecture, University Mohamed Seddik Benyahia, Jijel, Algeria

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Today, the building is pointed out as an energy consumer, a resource depleter and a generator of environmental
Compatibility impacts, thus generating innumerable repercussions on the environment. To address this situation, this work is a
Ecological house contribution to place the building in a sustainable context by identifying the best compatibility between ma-
LCA terial, energy and climate of five ecological houses in comparison with their thermal, energy and environmental
Energy needs
behavior. For this purpose, we carried out dynamic multi-energy zone simulations. This allowed us to know the
Environmental impact
Sensitivity analysis
heating needs of each house, which vary from 7kwh/m2/year to 190kwh/m2/year, those with the least sa-
tisfactory results were improved. Other simulations by Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and sensitivity analysis
allowed us to identify respectively the contribution of the different sources of impacts to the overall balance and
the most influential factors in order to identify the best compatibility between building materials, energy and
climate.

1. Introduction according to its different life phases: 6% primary energy consumption

Buildings are considered as one of the most energy-consuming
sectors, one of the most depleting of natural resources and the most
polluting too. It explains a significant part of the increased environ-
mental degradation that feeds a problem of global essence but also
inherent to other scales that affect the city, society, the district and
especially the buildings that structure them (Bouchair, Tebbouche,
Hammouni, Lehtihet, & Blibli, 2013; Boukhabla, Alkama, & Bouchair,
2013; Pardo-Garcia et al., 2019; Richter & Behnisch, 2019; Sebti,
Alkama, & Bouchair, 2013; Xie et al., 2019). The solution does not,
however, remain simple to find.
In this context, several studies have been carried out to reduce the
environmental degradation by controlling the building's energy con-
sumption. In this respect, we can mention the study of (Robillart,
Schalbart, Chaplais, & Peuportier, 2019) who developed a model for
reducing and controlling the energy efficiency of buildings by pre-
dicting the displacement of the electrical heating load for better control
of energy consumption. Guiavarch (2003) conducted another study on
a high-performance office building of 1700 m2 over a life simulated at
80 years with a major renovation, The author concluded that a high-
performance building is one of the following energy thresholds
for the construction phase; 93% for the operation phase; less than 1%
for the renovation phase; less than 1% for the demolition phase. Other
experimental studies were also carried out, such as that carried out on a
tertiary building in Mèze, the aim of which is to reduce emissions over
its life cycle by a factor of 4 (Peuportier, 2000). The results finally led to
a reduction by a factor of 3, strengthening, further, the studies con-
ducted in this context. LCA was also carried out on 20 buildings
(dwellings) in Zurich (Matasci, Seyler, Althaus, & Kytzia, 2006) which
highlighted the importance of the renovation phase and showed that
the use stage is the one with the greatest impact.
This environmental framework, for limiting the impacts generated
by buildings, is still of interest to researchers working on different axes
(Bouchair, 2015a, 2015b; Bouchair, 2004; Tebbouche, Bouchair, &
Grimes, 2017). We can cite a study on the renovation of buildings with
almost zero energy consumption on a pilot case (Brambilla, Salvalai,
Imperadori, & Sesana, 2018) which allowed an energy modernization
based on the methodology developed by Active House, but also an
environmental efficiency of this case study. Another study was con-
ducted to assess the impact of products used throughout the building's
life cycle, including their manufacture, transportation, installation, use,
maintenance and substitution, and end-of-life (Hernandez, Oregi,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: d.kaoula@univ-blida.dz (D. Kaoula), abouchair@univ-jijel.dz (A. Bouchair).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101781
Received 14 February 2019; Received in revised form 10 August 2019; Accepted 10 August 2019
Available online 17 August 2019
2210-6707/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair
Longo, & Cellura, 2019). LCA was also benchmarked against Energy
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Carbon Life Cycle Assessment
(LCCO2A) (Chau, Leung, & Ng, 2015). The study found that fairly
consistent results can be obtained from the three components with re-
spect to the relative contribution of the different life cycle stages.
However, discrepancies appear between the results obtained for the
three components when different fuel mixture compositions are used in
electricity generation, or when the overall impacts are not primarily
due to greenhouse gas emissions. The LCA model has also been devel-
oped to assess the environmental impacts of building construction in
Hong Kong (Dong & Ng, 2015). The results indicate that the material is
the main factor contributing to the environmental impacts of the up-
stream stages of social housing construction. The role of zero-energy
buildings in the achievement of smart cities has been highlighted
through a study based on previous studies in this context (Kylili &
Fokaides, 2015). The LCA has also been used to assess greenhouse gas
emissions during the construction phase of buildings in China (Hong,
Shen, Feng, Lau, & Mao, 2015). The results showed that indirect
emissions accounted for 97% of all GHG emissions. On-site electricity
consumption and building material production were the two main
sources of direct and indirect emissions, respectively. A study based on
LCA compared three hotel buildings with different envelopes (Kaoula &
Bouchair, 2018), has shown that it is possible to reduce the energy
requirements of traditional and standard building envelopes by as-
signing low-energy building scenarios. Another study based on LCA
allowed multi-objective optimization in building design (Bonamente
et al., 2019). The proposed methodology is applied to two scenarios: the
nominal building parameters and the validated model obtained from
dynamic energy simulations. The results showed large differences in
overall energy consumption between the two scenarios, resulting in
differences in the sizing of optimal renewable energy installations and
different electricity distribution systems. Another multi-purpose opti-
mization was performed based on simulating the renovation of in-
stitutional buildings taking into account energy consumption, life-cycle
costs and life-cycle analysis (Sharif & Hammad, 2019). The study found
the optimal scenario for the renovation of institutional buildings taking
into account energy consumption and LCA while providing an effective
method to deal with the limited renovation budget.
The LCA of the buildings has attracted the interest of many re-
searchers. Some have been dedicated to the literature review of dif-
ferent works carried out in the context of LCA (Geng et al., 2017;
Vilches, Garcia-Martinez, & Sanchez-Montanes, 2017), or a critical re-
view (Anand & Amor, 2017; Soust-Verdaguer, Llatas, & García-
Martínez, 2017).
Further research has dealt with approaches allowing to avoid the
building risks that are related to investment costs and environmental
impacts (Frossard, Peuportier, & Schalbart, 2018). Others have resorted
to LCA in order to develop the environmental regulations for new
buildings (Gaëta, Guldner, Piton, Priem, & Thiébaut, 2018) and eva-
luation of performance functions with interoperable tools (Fraisse et al.,
2018).
However, despite the relevance of these studies, they only focused
on a single aspect for the impact reduction. Since few studies examine
the influence of material choice on the generation of environmental
impacts under different climatic conditions. It is also important to
highlight the lack of identification of the different sources responsible
for impact generation over the entire life-cycle. In this context, our
work is presented as a contribution to absorb this deficiency by working
both on a complex but relevant axis, namely, thermal behavior, energy,
LCA and the identification of sources of impacts and influential factors.
In this context, the purpose of this work is to identify the best com-
patibility between materials, energy used in the building to a given
climate by comparing the thermal, energy and environmental behavior
of 5 houses with different building systems and belonging to different
climate zones and thus know the factors affecting their balances; in
particular, the optimal material for reducing environmental impacts in
2
Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781
different climate zones, as well as the most appropriate scenario for
each of these zones for better environmental optimization. This will
enable us to know how to decide objectively before constructing and
choosing the materials in a given climate context and above all to know
the elements requiring particular attention when making efforts to re-
duce impacts.
Our work, forms an aid for decision-making. It will make it possible
to offer sustainable and ecological cities to a society that is part of them.
This will be through controlled knowledge of the thermal, energy and
environmental behavior of different materials, and the type of energy
used in buildings and their compatibility with climatic zones.
To this end, we have structured our analysis work into different
sections; a first section concerns the study of thermal, energetic and
environmental behavior while identifying the sources of the impact of
our different variants with their own technical, geometric and climatic
specificities. A second section concerns the improvement of the energy
balance, by climate zoning and isolation, and the environmental bal-
ance by assigning specific scenarios. A final section will allow us to
identify the factors influencing energy and environmental behavior by
limiting the interference of variable parameters through LCA (Life Cycle
Analysis) and sensitivity analysis.
The results of this analysis work will allow us to identify better
compatibility between materials, the type of energy and the climate
zone likely to better satisfy the energy and the environmental behavior.
2. Methodology
2.1. Description of the method used
Our methodology was based on three main steps: the first concerned
the evaluation of the thermal, energy and environmental balances of
our 5 case studies with their own specific characteristics related to their
geometry, climate zones and envelopes, while identifying for each
variant the sources of impacts and their contribution to the overall
balance.
In a second step, an improvement of the balance sheets, mentioned
above is proposed, via a series of simulations, based on the results of the
first analysis.
The third step consists in identifying the factors influencing energy
behavior and consequently environmental behavior by assigning the
same typologies (ground floor and single-storey), the same built form
and the same climatic zones (H1, H2 and H3) alternately to all our
variants and then comparing their heating needs and impact generation
by Life Cycle Assessment. A sensitivity analysis is also proposed for the
two typologies previously mentioned in each climate zone in order to
better identify influential parameters.
This second application allowed us to know the influence of mate-
rials in each climate zone, by externalizing the influence of geometric
variations, on the different balances, and to know which type of con-
struction system and under which climatic zone is likely to achieve the
best energy performance and provide the best thermal and environ-
mental behavior, and thus be able to identify the best possible com-
patibility of our different variants. The methodology described is
schematized in Fig. 1.
2.2. Presentation of the LCA method
The purpose of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is to quantify the en-
vironmental effects and material and energy flows of a product from the
extraction of natural resources to the treatment of ultimate waste; it has
been used in different contexts and by a wide range of actors from in-
ternational groups that have led to the harmonization of the approach
in question and a proliferation of ideas and efforts. It is now applicable
to the building industry thanks to several tools that have been proposed
to it (Peuportier et al., 2004). This method has been assimilated to the
construction sector thanks to Bruno Peuportier's work, in particular
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair
Fig. 1. The main steps of the methodological approach.
with the REGENER (Peuportier, 1998) project, as well as other work
that has contributed to the development of indicators at the building
level (Peuportier, 2003).
The international standard ISO 14040 defines life cycle analysis as
"the compilation and evaluation of inputs and outputs and the potential
environmental impacts of a product system during its life cycle". This
standard identifies four steps for this method (Fig. 2).
In addition, the same method is based on the following life phases:
construction, use, renovation and demolition. The chronological pro-
gression between the different stages is shown by the arrows between
the different boxes (Fig. 3).
Despite its many advantages, the LCA method is relatively limited in
terms of weighting indicators reflecting impact categories, although
this has not been thoroughly proven, it is often controversial and thus
based on consensus. A second limit is related to the validity of the re-
sults, which is limited to a context defined in advance by the initial
assumptions and cannot be exploitable in another different context.
Another limit is related to the database, any change or update of which,
will systematically influence the interpretation of the results. Finally,
the LCA covers only the quantitative aspects of environmental impacts.
However, the LCA methodology remains the most credible and ef-
fective way to assess an environmental impact, it is a very rigorous
Fig. 2. The main steps of the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) method (Faiz Abd Rashid & Yusoff, 2015).
3
Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781
approach, the best one, which has been the subject of a flood of sci-
entific work and has led to its standardization.
2.3. Simulation approach
Our simulation approach is based on a software chain (Fig. 4), we
started this approach by modelling our case study via ALCYONE, then
we carried out a dynamic thermal simulation using the COMFIE soft-
ware, the results obtained are then transmitted to EQUER in order to be
able to carry out an environmental impact assessment via an LCA. The
sensitivity analysis was carried out by the Amapola module, which is
part of the same software chaining system.
In addition, 12 impacts were considered for this assessment,
namely: energy consumed (Gj), water used (m3), depletion of abiotic
resources (kg E-15), inert waste produced (teq), radioactive waste
(dm3), greenhouse effect (tco2), acidification (kgSO2), eutrophication
(kgPO4), aquatic ecotoxicity (m3), human toxicity (kg), photochemical
ozone production (kg C2H4) and odors (m3 air).
3. Presentation of the five ecological houses
The study we carried out focused on five ecological houses with
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair
Fig. 3. The phases of the system life cycle analysis (Popovici, 2006).
Fig. 4. Input/output chainings between evaluation tools.
different technical characteristics and different climatic zones. The se-
lection of these houses was based on four criteria: their technical spe-
cificities linked to the materials used, their typologies (ground floor and
single-storey), their geometries and their climatic zones (H1, H2 and
H3). The difference characterizing each parameter was deliberately
chosen as a selection criterion in order to know, in a first step, the
energetic, thermal and environmental behavior as well as the sources of
impacts of each variant in its own typological, geometric, technical and
climatic context, and their contribution to the overall balance. Then
know the behavior and adaptability of each material to the different
climatic zones by assigning the same typology, the same shape of the
building and the same climatic zone to the variants studied in order to
deduce the best compatibility of each variant with a control of the in-
terference of different factors.
We present the houses concerned in Table 1, their technical speci-
ficities are summarized in Table 2, whereas the scenarios selected are
summarized in Table 3. In addition, the modelling of these houses is
presented in Fig. 5.
For each climate zone we have chosen a standard climate of a re-
presentative city belonging to the zone in question, in this case:
Climatic zone H1 : climate of Paris (Ile de France)
Climatic zone H2: climate of Bordeaux (Gironde)
Climatic zone H3: climate of Montpellier (Hérault)
4
Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781
The specificities of each climate are summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6
.
4. Results
The thermal simulation results that we obtained are summarized in
Figs. 6–10. In addition, the results of the evaluation of the comfort
threshold via the Brager diagram are illustrated in Figs. 11–13.
The results of the energy behavior are summarized in Fig. 14. In
addition, those of the environmental behavior are presented in Fig. 15
for the LCA results by life phases and in Fig. 16 for the LCA by impact
value.
In order to know which element requires particular consideration
when trying to reduce the impacts generated by these houses on the
environment, we studied their relative contribution of the different
sources of impacts to the overall balance.
It should be recalled that heating and DHW (Domestic Hot Water)
are supplied by gas, waste is not burnt, and we have also integrated the
transport of occupants in order to know its possible contribution to the
overall balance, taking into account:
The distance between home and commerce: 500m
Distance to the public transport network: 800m
Distance between home and work: 25,000 m
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Table 1
Presentation of the five houses.
House name House photo Situation Climate zone Estimation of Number of Mail wall material
Shon levels

High-performance house Loire-Atlantique-44 H1 202.33 1 floor Brick

Traditional house Ile de France 105.41 1 floor Stone

Passive house Bordeaux (Gironde) H2 165.91 Ground floor Concrete

Wooden house Pays de la Loire 145.96 1 floor Wood

(Vendée)

Economic house Montpelier (Herault) H3 175.02 1 floor Parpaing and hollow

brick

% of occupants making the daily trip: 60%.
The results obtained are presented in Fig. 17.
5. Discussion
5.1. Thermal behavior
The main observations that can be drawn from the thermal behavior
of each house are as follows:
1 Wooden house: the temperature drops sharply to 6°c during the
coldest week. During the hottest week, there are strong fluctuations
with a maximum value of 30°c, which makes the atmosphere very
uncomfortable.
2 The economic house: a sudden drop in temperature of up to 10°c for
the northern spaces during the coldest week, and an average tem-
perature of 20°c for the western spaces. During the hottest week, the
temperature varies between 26°c and 28°c. The indoor temperature
is on average 3°c higher than the outside temperature.
3 The passive house: a remarkable stability of indoor temperature at
19°c with a shift of 5°c during the coldest week. During the hottest
week, we notice sudden drops compared to that of the outside with
an average shift of 3°c
4 The high- performance house: while the outside temperature drops
sharply, the inside temperature seems more stable with slight fluc-
tuations of 2.5°c during the coldest week. During the hottest week, it
reaches 28°c. When the outside temperature drops at midnight, the
delay is 8°c.
5 The traditional house: the indoor temperature drops very sharply to
7°c during the coldest week. During the hottest week, a very high
stability characterizes the indoor temperature with a value of 22°c
which places the interior atmosphere of this house in the comfort
zone but only during the hot season.
From the observation of the different thermal behaviors, we can say
that houses with high thermal inertia walls benefit from a comfortable
temperature (passive house and high-performance house), but thermal
inertia alone is not enough to establish a level of comfort during both
seasons (traditional house), good generic wall insulation promotes a
better comfort threshold. However, the absence of a high thermal in-
ertia is behind the sudden temperature drops as well as the large fluc-
tuations recorded in the wooden house, for the other houses, despite the
absence of strong fluctuations or sudden temperature drops, the latter
are outside the recommended limit of summer comfort, this is also
explained by the average thermal inertia (brick and block). In addition,
a judicious orientation avoids low winter temperatures.

5
 D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair

Table 2
Main technical features of the five houses.
HOUSE COMPONENTS PASSIVE HOUSE WOODEN HOUSE TRADITIONAL HOUSE

Exterior wall 20 cm glass wool + heavy concrete of Wooden wool of 35 cm + wool of hemp of 12 cm + blade of air of Hard limestone of 60 cm + Placoplatre BA of 1.3 cm
20 cm 1.5 cm + plasters 1.3 cm gypsum
Interior wall Heavy concrete of 16 cm Wooden wool of 35 cm + wool of 16 cm hemp + blade of 1.5 cm air + plasters Hard limestone of 30cm
1.3 cm gypsum
Low-floor 20 cm glass wool + heavy concrete of Generic insulating material of 15 cm + hourdi of concrete 16 cm 3 cm wood fibers + 20 cm hemp wool + 14c terracotta 14th slate
20 cm
Intermediate floor – Light wood of 10 cm + wool of hemp of 15 cm + light wood of 6 cm + generic Plaster + cellulose of 1.3 cm + hourdi of 14 in terracotta of
insulating on the underside 35 cm 16 cm + mortar of 3 cm + terracotta of 3 cm
High floor Wool of 40 cm hemp + light wood of 2 cm 40 cm glass wool + plasters 1 cm gypsum
Carpentry Window and carries Wooden sliding window Double glazing Wooden sliding window double glazing 4.12.4 Double glazed low emission argon. U frame 2.1
window 4.12.4
Sliding with base Sliding with base Percentage of clear 85%
U frame = 2.4 U frame = 2.4 U vertical glazing 1.3 w / (m2k)

6
Poucentage of light = 74 % Poucentage of light = 74 % Insulating door
U vertical glazing = 2.95 W / (m²k) U vertical glazing = 2.95 W / (m²k) U frame 1
U horizontal glazing = 2.95 W / (m²k) U horizontal glazing = 2.95 W/(m²k°)
Door Insulating door Insulating door Very insulating door
U frame = 1 U frame = 1 U frame = 0.8

HIGH-PERFORMANCE HOUSE ECONOMIC HOUSE

Exterior wall 10 cm rock wool + brick perf. horizontal. type G20 cm + light wood of 1 cm Exterior plaster of 2 cm + expanded polystyrene of 7 cm + breeze block of
20 cm + Placoplatre BA 13 of 1.3 cm
Interior wall 10 cm rock wool + Argelis bricks of 20 + 1 cm light wood Plaster running 2 cm + hollow brick 5 cm + plaster running 2 cm
Low-floor Cork panel4 cm + heavy concrete de10 cm + mortar 3 cm + terracotta 3 cm Heavy concrete of 20 cm + expanded polystyrene of 4 cm + mortar of 5 cm + tiling of 2 cm
Intermediate floor Placoplatre BA13 of 1.3 cm + 12 cm concrete slabs + 4 cm heavy concrete + 5 cm Plaster + cellulose of 1.3 cm + hexadis of 14 in terracotta of 16 cm + mortar of
mortar + 1 cm tiles 3 cm + terracotta of 3 cm
High floor 1.6 cm wood fiber + 10 cm cellulose fiber + 1.6 cm wood fiber Hemp wool of 20 cm + plaster + cellulose of 1.3 cm
Carpentry Aluminum casement window DG Double glazing low emittance argon Frame = 2.1 Percentage of clear = 85% U Double glazing low emittance argon Frame = 2.1 Percentage of clear = 85% U glazing
A1 + A1 4.6.4 glazing vertical = 1.3 W / (m²k) vertical = 1.3 W / (m²k)
U frame 4. Percentage of light 66% Horizontal glazing = 1.35 W / (m²k) Horizontal glazing = 1.35 W / (m²k)
Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Table 3
Main operating scenarios of the five houses.
Scenarios The 5 houses

Operating scenarios Heating 16C° from 9am to 5 pm, Monday to Friday, and 19C° the rest of the time and on weekends
Air conditioning 30C° from 9am to 5 pm, Monday to Friday, and 26C° the rest of the time and on weekends
Ventilation Double flow VMC with annual heat exchanger for the main rooms, and natural ventilation for hallway, cellar
and garage
Lighting bedroom and living room Room and living room: Manual on, automatic off by absence detection and manual daylight management for
dimming the lighting. Lighting power 2 w/m2
Kitchen Manual on/off switch, auto on/off and auto off according to threshold for dimming the lighting. Lighting power
2 w/m2
Sanitary, corridor and Manual on/off switch, manual control with daylight. Lighting power 1.4 w/m2
garage
Occupation No occupancy from 9am to 5 pm Monday to Friday, 70% from 9 pm to 5am for the whole week and 100% the
rest of the time and the weekend
LCA scenarios Energy Natural gas for heating and DHW. Boiler efficiency 0.87
Water 100 litres/day/per day, including 40 l/p/d of DHW. Efficiency of the water network 80%.
Waste products 1000 g/day/p with 40% sorted glass, 20% sorted paper, no waste incineration
Simulation time 80 years
Number of occupants 05 person

5.2. Evaluation of comfort quality via the Brager zone
The Brager diagram gives us a better reading of the comfort
threshold in our five houses. We find that almost all houses offer very
satisfactory annual comfort values, apart from the passive house whose
percentage of discomfort is significantly higher. This is explained by the
orientation, although it is good for the winter season, however, in the
summer season and the absence of sun protection; the east, west and
south orientation would increase the indoor temperature excessively,
which also requires prolonged use of air conditioning which would
paradoxically increase the rate of discomfort among the occupants.
On average the percentages of annual comfort for the five houses
are as follows, these values differ according to the orientation of the
spaces: Wooden house: 76.93%–86.99%, economic house:
61.44%–83.81%, passive house: 40.97%–42.27%, high-performance
house: 83.70%–87.10% and traditional house: 72.50%–73.35%.
In addition, what we find is that the traditional house offers a very
good summer comfort, unlike the passive house whose performance is
visible especially in winter.
5.3. Energy behavior
Heating needs mainly reflect the level of winter comfort and the off-
season when the need to heat is felt, so we find that the houses that
have experienced significant needs are:
The traditional house: this is explained by the lack of insulation of
the walls, which increases energy losses.
The high performance house: this is explained by the light floors
that characterize them unlike other houses and this despite the good
thermal inertia of its materials.
5.4. Environmental behavior
5.4.1. LCA by phase of life
The phase with the greatest impact is the use phase, which is re-
sponsible on average for 80% of the total impact, followed by the
construction phase (10%–20%), renovation (5%–10%) and finally de-
molition (2%).
5.4.2. LCA by impact value
The LCA carried out by EQUER reveals entangled curves which
leads us to say that some houses generate more impacts than others, the
same houses can also generate fewer impacts than other houses.
In order to better understand the factors that contributed to this
result, it is necessary to know the contribution of the different sources
of impacts to the overall balance sheet for each house.
5.4.3. Relative contribution of different sources of impacts
The main conclusions drawn are as follows:
- The impact of the greenhouse effect: the main source of this impact
is heating for all variants (50%–82%), except for the passive house
where we find that lighting (30%), construction (20%) and material
transport (20%) are the three main sources of this impact, this is
explained by the heavy concrete whose manufacture is responsible
for the emission of these gases. The heating is not displayed as a
source of impact for this house which is compatible with the results
of the heating needs we obtained (only 7kwh/m2/year).
- The impact of the energy consumed: this impact is generated by
heating and lighting for the cases of the wooden house, the high-
performance house and the traditional house. For the pas-sive and
the economic houses, the impact is generated mainly by lighting in
the following percentages 85% for the former and 70% for the latter.
Which consolidates well the results of heating needs shown in
Fig. 14.
- The impact of water consumption is mainly due to the unrestrained
consumption of water by occupants, the contribution to this impact
is estimated at 90% for all houses.
- The impact of inert waste: this impact is mainly due to the two
sources, waste (30%–65%) and demolition (20%–40%) for all
houses, except for the wooden house (85% household waste and
10% demolition), this is explained by the different materials used,
indeed wood generates a minimum impact during demolition com-
pared to other materials.
- The impact of radioactive waste: its main source of this impact is
lighting due to electricity, which contributes 85%–90% of the total
impact.
- The impact of acidification: the sources responsible for this impact
differ from one house to another: For the traditional house, it is
mainly the heating (42%) and the transport of materials (25%). For
the passive house, it is mainly the lighting, therefore the electricity
(30%) and the transport of materials (23%). For the other houses it
is all the sources mentioned above.
- The impact of eutrophication: the transport of materials
(20%–30%), heating (20%–40%), are the main sources responsible
for this impact for our different houses except for the passive house
where we find that heating contributes only slightly to this impact
(5%) while transport contributes 40%, this is explained by its re-
inforced insulation which reduces the use of heating and thus sig-
nificantly minimizes its contribution to the generation of this im-
pact.
- The impact of smog: the sources responsible for this impact are
transport (20%–50%) and heating (20%–40%) for our different

7
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair
Fig. 5. 3D graphical modeling and 2D thermal zoning of the five houses using ALCYONE software ((a) traditional home, (b) high-performance house, (c) economic
house, (d) wooden house, (e) passive house).
houses, except for the passive house, whose heating contributes only
very slightly to the generation of this impact.
6. Improved balance sheets
6.1. Improvement of the heating balance
The results of the various series of simulations we carried out
showed that some houses gave a very good energy balance with re-
duced heating needs (passive house 7kwh/m2/year, wooden house
28kwh/m2/year and economic house 38kwh/m2/year), while others
offered a less satisfactory balance with high heating needs (efficient
house 92kwh/m2/year and traditional house 190kwh/m2/year), for the
8
Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781
latter two we decided to improve their balance sheet:
In a first attempt, we have assigned for them two other climate
zones apart from the one to which it belongs, following which we will
have 3 variants for each house (H1, H2 and H3).
In a second attempt, we opted for an improvement by reinforcing
the exterior walls with reinforced insulation, openings (triple glazing
with low argon U-frame = 1.5, Percentage of clearness = 85%, Vertical
glazing = 0.7 W/(m²k) and a highly insulating door with a U-frame of
0.8) to determine if good insulation would be sufficient to reduce
heating needs.
We have also tried to improve the assessment not only for the basic
variant but for all the proposed variants (AML H1, AML H2, AML H3) in
order to know the best compatibility between construction data,
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Table 4
Climate data for zone H1 (Paris climate) (source: climate consultant).
WEATHER DATA SUMMARY LOCATION: PARIS _ORLY. FRANCE

Latitude/Longitude: 48.73 °North, 2.4 °East, Time Zone from Greenwich 1.

Data Source: IWC Data 071490 WMO Station Number, Elevation 314 ft

MONTHLY MEANS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Global Horiz Radiation (Avg Hourly) 28 45 61 85 96 106 109 109 80 60 36 23 Btu/sq.ft

Direct Normal Radiation (Avr Hourly) 27 38 30 40 44 59 69 83 52 52 36 17 Btu/sq.ft
Diffuse Radiation (Avr Hourly) 20 29 46 58 65 64 61 55 51 36 24 19 Btu/sq.ft
Global Horiz Radiation (Max Hourly) 111 142 198 249 281 285 285 264 237 180 129 82 Btu/sq.ft
Direct Normal Radiation (Max Hourly) 212 219 222 247 263 261 265 265 259 258 240 140 Btu/sq.ft
Diffuse Radiation (Max Hourly) 49 71 117 140 151 153 150 129 114 95 64 44 Btu/sq.ft
Global Horiz Radiation (Avg Daily Total) 245 441 723 1150 1460 1683 1697 1541 988 643 330 192 Btu/sq.ft
Direct Normal Radiation (Avg Daily Total) 237 376 349 549 679 939 1069 1175 644 564 333 139 Btu/sq.ft
Diffuse Radiation (Avg Daily Total) 173 290 542 790 993 1017 954 788 638 388 220 154 Btu/sq.ft
Global Horiz Illumination (Avg Hourtly) 918 1442 2006 2758 3139 3449 3559 3525 2590 1950 1177 765 footcandles
Direct Normal Illumination (Avg Hourly) 663 1034 851 1173 1274 1639 1926 2316 1428 1421 907 404 footcandles
Dry Bulb Temperature (Avg Monthly) 38 39 44 49 57 62 66 67 60 52 43 40 degrees F
Dew Point Temperature (Avg Monthly) 36 29 36 40 45 54 54 55 52 46 40 37 degrees F
Relative Humidity (Avg Monthly) 91 67 75 72 66 77 65 67 77 81 89 89 percent
Wind Direction (Monthly Mode) 120 40 220 220 240 40 300 260 220 230 40 60 degrees
Wind Speed (Avg Monthly) 8 11 10 11 8 8 6 7 10 9 7 9 mph
Ground Temperature (Avg Monthly of 3 42 43 45 48 55 59 60 60 57 52 47 44 degrees F
Depths)

Table 5
Climate data for zone H2 (Bordeaux climate) (source: climate consultant).
WEATHER DATA SUMMARY LOCATION: BORDEAUX. FRANCE

Latitude/Longitude: 44.83 °North, 0.7 °West, Time Zone from Greenwich 1.

Data Source: IWC Data 075100 WMO Station Number, Elevation 200 ft

MONTHLY MEANS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Global Horiz Radiation (Avg Hourly) 45 61 86 104 107 116 120 112 109 74 52 39 Btu/sq.ft
Direct Normal Radiation (Avr Hourly) 50 46 67 72 54 69 79 81 98 61 60 42 Btu/sq.ft
Diffuse Radiation (Avr Hourly) 28 39 49 56 68 67 62 57 51 45 31 26 Btu/sq.ft
Global Horiz Radiation (Max Hourly) 125 174 243 276 278 298 295 280 245 197 152 112 Btu/sq.ft
Direct Normal Radiation (Max Hourly) 236 221 280 271 260 275 277 258 252 259 258 240 Btu/sq.ft
Diffuse Radiation (Max Hourly) 68 99 132 148 203 197 170 136 138 101 78 58 Btu/sq.ft
Global Horiz Radiation (Avg Daily Total) 405 624 1017 1389 1572 1790 1812 1561 1344 795 495 344 Btu/sq.ft
Direct Normal Radiation (Avg Daily 448 482 797 979 800 1073 1193 1122 1196 655 565 363 Btu/sq.ft
Total)
Diffuse Radiation (Avg Daily Total) 259 402 582 745 1001 1029 941 798 632 486 293 232 Btu/sq.ft
Global Horiz Illumination (Avg Hourtly) 1431 1951 2760 3342 3478 3772 3923 3639 3522 2383 1678 1266 footcandles
Direct Normal Illumination (Avg Hourly) 1255 1290 1898 2074 1552 1947 2233 2264 2696 1627 1538 1026 footcandles
Dry Bulb Temperature (Avg Monthly) 44 43 48 53 60 65 69 69 64 56 49 43 degrees F
Dew Point Temperature (Avg Monthly) 39 34 40 43 51 54 58 55 56 51 42 40 degrees F
Relative Humidity (Avg Monthly) 84 73 75 71 73 69 71 65 79 83 80 87 percent
Wind Direction (Monthly Mode) 250 100 260 230 310 270 250 40 280 250 130 130 degrees
Wind Speed (Avg Monthly) 9 6 9 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 mph
Ground Temperature (Avg Monthly of 3 46 47 49 52 58 62 64 63 60 56 51 48 degrees F
Depths)

climatic zone and insulation. The six variants in question are as follows:
1 H1: this is the basic variant without any changes.
2 AML H1: this is the basic variant in its basic climatic zone (H1) but
improved by insulation.
3 H2: this is the basic variant but in another climate zone (H2).
4 AML H2: this is the basic variant in another climatic zone (H2) and
improved by insulation.
5 H3: this is the basic variant in another climate zone (H3).
6 AML H3: this is the basic variant in another climatic zone (H3) and
improved by insulation.
The results obtained are presented in the same figure (Fig. 18) in
order to properly assess the comparison of all the variants (6 variants
for each house) and select the best alternative.
We then carried out an environmental simulation using EQUER to
study the LCA of the 6 new variants.
We note that both houses offer reduced energy requirements when
placed in the H3 climate zone, which leads us to say that the climate
parameters of the latter are very compatible with the constructive data
and operating scenarios used for these two houses.
Similarly, insulation offers a very significant reduction in heating
needs by keeping even their original climatic zone, especially the tra-
ditional house which offers the greatest difference and therefore the
best result in terms of heating needs, which allows us to say that the
optimization of a house's energy performance mainly involves coupling
a good thermal inertia to reinforced and preferably external insulation.

9
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Table 6
Climate data for zone H3 (Montpelier climate) (source: climate consultant).
WEATHER DATA SUMMARY LOCATION: MONTPELLIER. FRANCE

Latitude/Longitude: 43.58 °North, 3.97 °East, Time Zone from Greenwich 1.

Data Source: IWC Data 076430 WMO Station Number, Elevation 200 ft

MONTHLY MEANS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Global Horiz Radiation (Avg Hourly) 59 72 106 115 125 135 143 137 110 82 59 50 Btu/sq.ft
Direct Normal Radiation (Avr Hourly) 75 79 105 93 83 100 124 124 101 80 74 72 Btu/sq.ft
Diffuse Radiation (Avr Hourly) 31 37 48 54 64 61 52 52 49 43 31 27 Btu/sq.ft
Global Horiz Radiation (Max Hourly) 136 189 251 281 304 304 298 287 262 213 158 116 Btu/sq.ft
Direct Normal Radiation (Max Hourly) 209 279 286 284 284 283 281 278 274 266 248 242 Btu/sq.ft
Diffuse Radiation (Max Hourly) 74 95 132 137 197 152 152 146 125 100 79 59 Btu/sq.ft
Global Horiz Radiation (Avg Daily 543 737 1248 1532 1826 2057 2138 1894 1361 883 563 448 Btu/sq.ft
Total)
Direct Normal Radiation (Avg Daily 695 807 1226 1234 1218 1521 1849 1713 1252 863 709 634 Btu/sq.ft
Total)
Diffuse Radiation (Avg Daily Total) 292 388 568 717 938 926 773 715 607 463 294 242 Btu/sq.ft
Global Horiz Illumination (Avg Hourtly) 1854 2283 3353 3682 4016 4372 4649 4438 3521 2614 1873 1599 footcandles
Direct Normal Illumination (Avg 1943 2138 2975 2653 2362 2836 3552 3526 2831 2184 1950 1821 footcandles
Hourly)
Dry Bulb Temperature (Avg Monthly) 45 45 50 55 62 69 75 74 67 59 51 45 degrees F
Dew Point Temperature (Avg Monthly) 35 36 33 46 50 58 61 60 53 48 42 39 degrees F
Relative Humidity (Avg Monthly) 68 74 53 72 68 70 65 64 64 68 74 80 percent
Wind Direction (Monthly Mode) 300 320 320 20 130 300 20 20 20 290 280 20 degrees
Wind Speed (Avg Monthly) 9 9 11 10 10 9 8 8 9 10 10 7 mph
Ground Temperature (Avg Monthly of 3 50 48 49 50 56 62 66 68 67 64 59 54 degrees F
Depths)

Fig. 6. Comparison of the evolution of the indoor and outdoor temperature of the wooden house during the coldest week (a) and the hottest week (b).

Fig. 7. Comparison of the evolution of the indoor and outdoor temperature of the economic house during the coldest week (a) and the hottest week (b).

10
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Fig. 8. Comparison of the evolution of the indoor and outdoor temperature of the passive house during the coldest week (a) and the hottest week (b).

Fig. 9. Comparison of the evolution of the indoor and outdoor temperature of the high-performance house during the coldest week (a) and the hottest week (b).

Fig. 10. Comparison of the evolution of the indoor and outdoor temperature of the traditional house during the coldest week (a) and the hottest week (b).

6.2. LCA corresponding to the improvement of heating needs
According to the LCA simulation (Figs. 19,20 ), we find that the best
results in terms of impacts correspond with the results of heating needs,
in fact the variants generating less impacts are those of the climatic
zone H3 and, of course, the reinforced insulation relating to these
variants; this leads us to say that in most cases, optimizing the thermal
and energy performance of a house leads to a better environmental
balance sheet, but this is not always the case, it also depends on the
choice of materials used, some of which, although they allow a good

11
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Fig. 11. Annual Brager Diagram of Wooden House (a) and Economic House (b).

Fig. 12. Annual Brager Diagram of the Passive House (a) and the High-Performance House (b).

Fig. 13. Annual Brager Diagram of the Traditional House.

12
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Fig. 14. Comparison of the heating needs of the 5 ecological houses.

Fig. 15. Comparative LCA by phase of life.

Fig. 16. Comparative LCA of the five ecological houses.

reduction in heating needs, generate certain environmental impacts
(passive house).
6.3. Improving the environmental performance
From the LCA results of the five houses we have done before, we
have found that some houses contribute more strongly than others to
the generation of environmental impacts, we have also found that it is
not necessarily houses with significant heating needs that offer negative
environmental performance by generating the largest share of the im-
pact. Based on this observation, we decided to improve the environ-
mental balance sheet of the first three houses that affect the

13
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair
Fig. 17. Relative contribution of the various sources of impacts to the overall
balance sheet of the traditional house (a), the passive house (b), the high-per-
formance house (c), the wooden house (d) and the economic house (e).
14
Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781
environment more strongly (passive house, high-performance house
and traditional house), for each of the latter, we proposed 6 variants:
1 Base: this is the variant of the base house whose main energy is
natural gas.
2 2.Wood energy: this variant has the same constructive character-
istics as the base house but with wood energy as the main energy for
heating and DHW.
3 3.District heating: this variant has the same constructive char-
acteristics as the base house but with urban heating as the main
energy for heating and DHW:
- District heating network loss: 3%, network length: 1000 m,
- Heating production: 50% waste, 15% gas, 15% fuel oil, 0% elec-
tricity, 10% coal, 0% wood and 0% geothermal energy.
- DHW production: 90% waste, 0% gas, 0% fuel oil, 10% electricity,
0% coal, 0% wood and 0% geothermal energy.
4 Electricity A: this variant has the same constructive characteristics
as the base house but with electricity as the main energy for heating
and DHW (50% hydroelectric efficiency and 50% nuclear efficiency)
5 Electricity B: it is the same as the previous variant but with 100%
hydroelectric efficiency
6 Insulation: it is a variant that is characterized by the same con-
structive characteristics of the base house but with reinforced in-
sulation of the exterior walls, openings (triple glazing with low
argon U-frame = 1.5, Percentage of light = 85%, Vertical
glazing = 0.7 W/(m²k) and highly insulating door with a U-frame of
0.8).
The results obtained are illustrated in the Figs. 21–23.
For the traditional and high-performance house, we can see that:
The variant generating fewer impacts than the others is the B
electricity variant, in fact, greenhouse gas emissions are significantly
reduced, as are the other impacts.
Reducing the efficiency of hydroelectric power to 50% in favor of a
nuclear power plant's efficiency to 50% increases the impact of radio-
active waste, energy consumption, water and resource depletion.
Reinforced insulation of the basic variant seems to offer good re-
sults, a kind of compromise between all impacts for all three variants.
Wood energy increases the impact of smog, human toxicity, eu-
trophication and acidification, while it reduces other impacts.
The supply of district heating, and with the parameters chosen,
increase acidification, human toxicity and aquatic eco-toxicity as well
as waste production.
For the passive house, we can see that the difference between var-
iants is not very significant, apart from an interesting reduction in waste
compared to the basic variant, nevertheless, we note that the best
variants are those that use district heating and electricity with 50% to
100% hydroelectric efficiency.
The best compatibility that we can deduce from this simulation
series is as follows:
Passive construction techniques (Concrete)- district heating/elec-
tricity with 50%–100% hydroelectric efficiency- climatic zone H3.
High-performance construction techniques (Brick)-electricity with
100% hydroelectric efficiency - climatic zones (H1-H3).
Traditional construction techniques (Stone) - 100% hydroelectric
power - climatic zones (H1-H3).
7. Control of interference of influential factors
7.1. By assigning the same typology and geometry
At this stage of the study, we have studied the thermal, energetic
and environmental behavior of our variants by considering the specific
typological, technical and climatic characteristics of each variant while
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Fig. 18. Improvement of heating needs by insulation and change of thermal zone.

Fig. 19. Comparative LCA of different variants of the High-performance house.

improving their energy and environmental balance.
Moreover, additional energy simulation series were carried out.
These were followed by com-parative LCAs by alternately assigning the
same typology, geomorphology and area for each vari-ant in the three
climatic zones over 80-year lifespan. These simulation series enabled to
better un-derstand the interference of the influential and uncertain
factors that caused the variation in the results.
Two typologies representing our variants (ground floor and single-
storey) have been applied to the latter; for the first typology, we have
chosen the geometry of the passive house. For the second typology, we
have chosen the geometry of the wooden house.
The results of the comparative heating requirements of the new
variants with the application of the ground floor typology and the same
geometry and surface area (Fig. 24) are as follows:
Zone H1: heating requirements range from 22kwh/m2/year to 215
kwh/m2/year.
Zone H2: heating requirements range from 16 kwh/m2/year to 185
kwh/m2/year.
Zone H3: heating requirements range from 7 kwh/m2/year to 110
kwh/m2/year.
The best results are offered by passive house construction techni-
ques in the three climatic zones followed by those of the wooden house.
The construction techniques of economically efficient and high-
performance houses are very similar.
The highest values of heating needs are offered by traditional home
construction techniques.
All variants have reduced requirements in climate zone H3, the best
reduction is related to the traditional variant with 75kwh/m2/year

15
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Fig. 20. LCA comparing different variants of the traditional house.

Fig. 21. LCA comparative different variants of the passive house.

reduction.
The LCA results corresponding to these new variants (Figs. 25–27)
show that the construction techniques of the passive house and its
materials (concrete) have the best environmental behavior in the 3
zones, followed by those of the wooden house, whereas those of the
traditional house (stone) seem to represent the variant that generates
the most impacts in the 3 zones.
The results of the application of the second typology (Fig. 28) are as
follows:
Climate zone H1: needs range from 32kwh/m2/year to 222kwh/

16
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Fig. 22. Comparative LCA of different variants of the performance house.

Fig. 23. LCA comparing different variants of the traditional house.

m2/year Wooden house construction techniques offer the best results in the
Climate zone H2: requirements range from 28kwh/m2/year to 212 three climatic zones followed by passive house construction.
kwh/m2/year The construction techniques of the economy house (cinder block)
Climate zone H3: requirements range from 13kwh/m2/year to 145 and the high-performance house (brick) offer very similar results.
kwh/m2/year Traditional house construction techniques offer maximized needs in

17
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair
Fig. 24. Comparison of heating needs by assigning the same typology and geometry of the passive house (ground floor).
Fig. 25. Comparative LCA by assigning the same typology and geometry of the passive house (ground floor) in the climatic zone H1.
all three areas.
The climatic zone H3 offers the best results for all variants and the
best reduction (67kwh/m2/year) for the variant of traditional house
construction techniques.
The LCA results corresponding to these variants (Figs. 29–31) show
that the variant representing the techniques and materials of the passive
house generates the least impact. The variations in the construction
techniques of wooden and economic houses (cinder block) have prac-
tically the same balance in all three areas. High performance home
construction techniques perform better in zone H3.
We can conclude by comparing the results of this simulation series
with the one we have done before (Fig. 16) that the most influential
factors are mainly geometry, typology then the climate zone.
The compatibilities that can be drawn from this simulation series
are as follows:
Passive construction techniques (concrete) - gas for heating and
18
Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781
domestic hot water - climatic zones (H1, H2 and H3). This compatibility
is adapted for the two typologies studied (ground floor and single-
storey).
Wooden construction techniques - gas for heating and domestic hot
water - climatic zones (H1, H2 and H3). This compatibility is more
optimal for the ground floor typology.
Natural gas block construction techniques for heating and domestic
hot water- climate zones (H1, H2 and H3). This compatibility is more
optimal for the single-storey typology.
7.2. By sensitivity analysis
We then carried out a series of sensitivity analyses in order to know
the technical parameters influencing our two typologies (ground floor
and single-storey) in each climate zone.
For the typology of the passive house (ground floor) (Figs. 32–34),
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Fig. 26. Comparative LCA by assigning the same typology and geometry of the passive house (ground floor) in the climatic zone H2.

Fig. 27. Comparative LCA by assigning the same typology and geometry of the passive house (ground floor) in the climatic zone H3.

the highest sensitivity were recorded in the climate zone (H1). In ad-
dition 10 most influential parameters were identified : wall dimensions
are concerned by five parameters, conductivity and thickness of in-
sulation materials by three parameters. The last two parameters con-
cern the conductivity and solar factor of the glazing.
For the typology of the wooden house (single-storey) (Figs. 35–37),
the climate zone (H1), has the highest sensitivity indices while the
lowest ones are recorded in the climate zone (H3). The first most in-
fluential parameter of the ten identified is related to CMV (Controlled
Mechanical Ventilation), two other influential parameters concerned
the properties of the glazing with another parameter related to natural
ventilation, then the dimensions of the walls which are concerned by
two parameters and finally we have the four remaining parameters
which are the least influential , these latter concerned the insulation.

19
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair
Fig. 28. Comparison of heating needs by assigning the same typology and geometry of the wooden house (single-storey).
Fig. 29. Comparative LCA by assigning the same typology and geometry of the wooden house (single-storey) in the climatic zone H1.
8. Conclusion
This study is a major contribution to the energetic and environ-
mental control of our buildings for more ecological cities, it is in-
novative in its kind because it combines several types of analyses with a
significant interference of exogenous factors. The global and transversal
nature of the approach adopted, covering several aspects and alter-
nating several parameters on 5 variants at the same time, could help
other researchers in their related work. Another interesting aspect of
this study is the objective control of these factors by identifying the
most influential parameters for more convincing results. It thus makes it
possible to establish quantifiable and relevant environmental perfor-
mance objectives.
The purpose of this study was to identify the best possible com-
patibility between the technical aspects of the houses studied, the type
of energy used and climate zoning, and also to identify the sources of
20
Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781
impacts and influential factors for better energy control and optimal
reduction of environmental impacts.
The method used to achieve this goal was mainly based on dynamic
thermal simulations that allowed us to compare the thermal behavior
and heating requirements of our variants. It was also based on the LCA,
which allowed us to compare the impacts generated by our different
variants and to identify their sources of impacts and their contribution
to the overall balance sheet as well as the type of energy most appro-
priate to the specificities of each variant. A final sensitivity analysis was
also applied, which allowed us to identify, with other LCAs, the most
influential factors on the two typologies reflecting our different var-
iants.
The main results obtained from all these series of analyses and si-
mulations allowed us to know the energy thresholds of 5 ecological
houses, each in its own technical, geometric and climatic context. These
needs range from 7 kwh/m2/year (passive house) to 190.kwh/m2/year
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Fig. 30. Comparative LCA by assigning the same typology and geometry of the wooden house (single-storey) in the climatic zone H2.

Fig. 31. Comparative LCA by assigning the same typology and geometry of the wooden house (single-storey) in the climatic zone H3.

(traditional house) (Section 4, Fig. 14). We were also able to identify
the sources of impacts and their contribution to the overall balance,
which will allow us to know which parameter should be given special
consideration when trying to reduce these impacts (Section 5.4.3).
The improvement of the balance sheets that we have carried out has
enabled us to reach the following conclusions:
A reduction in heating needs would greatly reduce the contribution
of the latter to the generation of the various impacts (passive house).
The integration of houses into transportation networks would
mainly reduce smog.
Waste incineration, apart from its advantages for energy recovery,
would paradoxically increase greenhouse gas emissions, acidification
and eutrophication.
A 100% hydroelectric efficiency for electricity production for

21
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Fig. 32. Sensitivity analysis of the passive house (ground floor typology) in the climate zone H1.

Fig. 33. Sensitivity analysis of the passive house (ground floor typology) in the climate zone H2.

Fig. 34. Sensitivity analysis of the passive house (ground floor typology) in the climate zone H3.

heating significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions as well as other
impacts.
Wood energy increases the impact of smog, human toxicity, eu-
trophication and acidification, and reduces other impacts.
The supply of district heating, and with the parameters chosen,
increase acidification, human toxicity and aquatic eco-toxicity as well
as waste production, but thinking of recovering 90% of the waste in gas
to supply heating and DHW with 10% of geothermal efficiency would
significantly reduce these impacts.
This work has mainly allowed us to deduce the best possible com-
patibilities for buildings with construction techniques similar to those
of our variants, for the latter, we recommend the following compat-
ibilities, two of which are adapted to passive construction techniques:
Passive construction techniques (Concrete)- district heating/elec-
tricity with 50%–100% hydroelectric efficiency- climatic zone H3.
Passive construction techniques (concrete) - gas for heating and
domestic hot water - climatic zones (H1, H2 and H3). This compatibility
is adapted for the two typologies studied (ground floor and single-

22
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781

Fig. 35. Sensitivity analysis of the wooden house (single-storey typology) in the climate zone H1.

Fig. 36. Sensitivity analysis of the wooden house (single-storey typology) in the climate zone H2.

Fig. 37. Sensitivity analysis of the wooden house (single-storey typology) in the climate zone H3.

storey)
High-performance construction techniques (brick)-electricity with
100% hydroelectric efficiency - climatic zones (H1-H3).
Traditional (stone) construction techniques - 100% hydroelectric
power - climatic zones (H1-H3).
Wooden construction techniques - gas for heating and domestic hot
water - climatic zones (H1, H2 and H3). This compatibility is more
optimal for the ground floor typology.
Cinder block construction techniques- natural gas for heating and
domestic hot water- climate zones (H1, H2 and H3). This compatibility
is more optimal for single-storey typology.
Finally, the most influential factors that we were able to identify
were geometry, the built surface and then climatic zoning for all var-
iants. Those related to the technical aspects of the buildings are as
follows:
The conductivity of the glass wool followed by that of the glazing,
then the parameters related to the dimensions of the walls, for a
building with technical, geometric and typical features similar to those

23
D. Kaoula and A. Bouchair
of the passive house.
When these characteristics are similar to those of the wooden house,
we obtained two parameters related to ventilation, two others related to
wall dimensions, two parameters related to glazing properties and four
parameters related to insulation.
This study has finally enabled us to know how to reduce environ-
mental impacts based on elements intrinsic to the building in its di-
mensions: technical, typical, geometric and climatic. It is therefore a
decision-support tool.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
References
Anand, C. K., & Amor, B. (2017). Recent developments, future challenges and new re-
search directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 67, 408–416.
Bonamente, E., Brunelli, C., Castellani, F., Garinei, A., Biondi, L., Marconi, M., et al.
(2019). A life-cycle approach for multi-objective optimisation in building design:
Methodology and application to a case study. Civil Engineering and Environmental
Systems, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2019.1576646.
Bouchair, A. (2004). Decline of urban ecosystem of Mzab valley. Building and Environment,
39(6), 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.12.001.
Bouchair, A., Tebbouche, H., Hammouni, A., Lehtihet, M., & Blibli, M. (2013). Compact
cities as a response to the challenging local environmental constraints in hot arid
lands of Algeria. Energy Procedia, 42, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.
2013.11.050.
Bouchair, A. (2015a). Sustainability features of vernacular architecture in southern Algeria.
Signals and systems: A primer with MATLAB®. 163.
Bouchair, A. (2015b). Vernacular architecture: Hot arid climate control. In (2 ed.). S.
Anwar (Vol. Ed.), Encyclopedia of energy engineering and technology: 4, (pp. 2030–
2050). Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press.
Boukhabla, M., Alkama, D., & Bouchair, A. (2013). The effect of urban morphology on
urban heat island in the city of Biskra in Algeria. International Journal of Ambient
Energy, 34(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01430750.2012.740424.
Brambilla, A., Salvalai, G., Imperadori, M., & Sesana, M. M. (2018). Nearly zero energy
building renovation: From energy efficiency to environmental efficiency, a pilot case
study. Energy and Buildings, 166, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.
02.002.
Chau, C., Leung, T., & Ng, W. (2015). A review on life cycle assessment, life cycle energy
assessment and life cycle carbon emissions assessment on buildings. Applied Energy,
143, 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.023.
Dong, Y. H., & Ng, S. T. (2015). A life cycle assessment model for evaluating the en-
vironmental impacts of building construction in Hong Kong. Building and
Environment, 89, 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.020.
Faiz Abd Rashid, A., & Yusoff, S. (2015). A review of life cycle assessment method for
building industry. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 45, 244–248.
Fraisse, G., Serafim Guardini, L., Wurtz, F., Brunotte, X., Enciu, P., Peuportier, B., et al.
(2018). Vers une optimisation intégrée des bâtiments basée sur un environnement
permettant l’interopérabilité des outils numériques. Paper presented at the IBPSA
France: Conférence Francophone de l’International Building Performance Simulation
Association.
Frossard, M., Peuportier, B., & Schalbart, P. (2018). Optimisation multicritère et analyse
de cycle de vie de bâtiments zéro-énergie. Paper presented at the IBPSA France :
Conférence Francophone de l’International Building Performance.
Gaëta, R., Guldner, L., Piton, F., Priem, L., & Thiébaut, A. (2018). Vers une réglementation
environnementale pour les bâtiments neufs. Paper presented at the Annales des Mines-
24
Sustainable Cities and Society 52 (2020) 101781
Responsabilite et environnement.
Geng, S., Wang, Y., Zuo, J., Zhou, Z., Du, H., & Mao, G. (2017). Building life cycle as-
sessment research: A review by bibliometric analysis. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 76, 176–184.
Guiavarch, A. (2003). Study of the improvement of the environmental quality of the building
by integration of solar compoents. Doctoral thesis. University of Cergy Pontoise 313 p.
Hernandez, P., Oregi, X., Longo, S., & Cellura, M. (2019). Life-cycle assessment of buildings.
Handbook of energy efficiency in buildings. Elsevier207–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-812817-6.00010-3.
Hong, J., Shen, G. Q., Feng, Y., Lau, W. S.-t., & Mao, C. (2015). Greenhouse gas emissions
during the construction phase of a building: A case study in China. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 103, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.023.
Kaoula, D., & Bouchair, A. (2018). Evaluation of environmental impacts of hotel buildings
having different envelopes using a life cycle analysis approach. Indoor and Built
Environment, 27(4), 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X16683235.
Kylili, A., & Fokaides, P. A. (2015). European smart cities: The role of zero energy
buildings. Sustainable Cities and Society, 15, 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.
2014.12.003.
Matasci, C., Seyler, C., Althaus, H. J., & Kytzia, S. (2006). Analysis of the life cycle of 20
buildings: Analysis of the different phases of life and highlighting the main causes of
their impact on the environment. Paper presented at the Schweizerisches. Status seminar.
Pardo-Garcia, N., Simoes, S., Dias, L., Sandgren, A., Suna, D., & Krook-Riekkola, A.
(2019). Sustainable and resource efficient cities platform – Surecity holistic simula-
tion and optimization for smart cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 701–711.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.070.
Peuportier, B. (1998). Le projet européen REGENER. Analyse du cycle de vie des bâti-
ments. Paper presented at the Conférence invitée.
Peuportier, B. (2000). Simulation and new expectations related to the concept of sus-
tainable development. Paper presented at the 2nd IBPSA Conference.
Peuportier, B. (2003). Eco-conception des bâtiments : bâtir en préservant l’environnement :
Presses des MINES.
Peuportier, B., Kellenberger, D., Anink, D., Mötzl, H., Anderson, A., Vares, S., et al.
(2004). Inter-comparison and benchmarking of LCA-based environmental assessment and
design tools.
Popovici, E. C. (2006). Contribution à l’analyse du cycle de vie des quartiers. Thèse de doc-
torat. École des Mines de Paris 253 p.
Richter, B., & Behnisch, M. (2019). Integrated evaluation framework for environmental
planning in the context of compact green cities. Ecological Indicators, 96(2), 38–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.025.
Robillart, M., Schalbart, P., Chaplais, F., & Peuportier, B. (2019). Model reduction and
model predictive control of energy-efficient buildings for electrical heating load
shifting. Journal of Process Control, 74, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.
2018.03.007.
Sebti, M., Alkama, D., & Bouchair, A. (2013). Assessment of the effect of modern trans-
formation on the traditional settlement ‘Ksar’of Ouargla in southern Algeria. Frontiers
of Architectural Research, 2(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2013.05.
002.
Sharif, S. A., & Hammad, A. (2019). Simulation-based multi-objective optimization of
institutional building renovation considering energy consumption, life-cycle cost and
life-cycle assessment. Journal of Building Engineering, 21, 429–445. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jobe.2018.11.006.
Soust-Verdaguer, B., Llatas, C., & García-Martínez, A. (2017). Critical review of bim-based
LCA method to buildings. Energy and Buildings, 136, 110–120. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.009.
Tebbouche, H., Bouchair, A., & Grimes, S. (2017). Towards an environmental approach
for the sustainability of buildings in Algeria. Energy Procedia, 119, 98–110. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.053.
Vilches, A., Garcia-Martinez, A., & Sanchez-Montanes, B. (2017). Life cycle assessment
(LCA) of building refurbishment: A literature review. Energy and Buildings, 135,
286–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.042.
Xie, R., Wei, D., Han, F., Lu, Y., Fang, J., Liu, Y., et al. (2019). The effect of traffic density
on smog pollution: Evidence from Chinese cities. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 144, 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.023.