Energy and Buildings 134 (2017) 319–328

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

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

Life cycle assessment of buildings and city quarters comparing

demolition and reconstruction with refurbishment
Verena Weiler ∗ , Hannes Harter, Ursula Eicker
Center of Applied Research Sustainable Energy Technologies, University of Applied Sciences Stuttgart, Schellingstraße 24, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany

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

Article history: In the building sector, the energy and the greenhouse gases embodied in the building materials are
Received 23 July 2016 becoming increasingly important. Combined with the operational primary energy demand and the end-
Received in revised form 28 October 2016 of-life, the whole life cycle of buildings can be assessed.
Accepted 2 November 2016
In this paper, a comprehensive method for calculating the life cycle of individual buildings is pre-
Available online 5 November 2016
sented. First, their material composition has been determined and generic values for the embodied
energy, embodied greenhouse gases, energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted during disposal of
Keywords:
the different building materials have been calculated. Subsequently these values have been integrated
Embodied energy and greenhouse gases
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
into an urban energy simulation software to simulate energy and emission values for buildings.
Urban simulation A given building geometry with four different building standards was considered. The results can help
Refurbishment scenarios to decide between building refurbishment or demolition and new construction. For example it could be
shown that the share of the life cycle stage production compared to the total value rises with a better
building insulation standard, as the share of the use stage decreases. The highest building refurbishment
standard resulted in the best life cycle performance when compared with less ambitious refurbishment
or construction of a new building of today’s standards.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The worldwide trend of urbanisation, which is assumed to
exceed 70% of all people living in urban areas by 2050 [1], calls for
more living space with increased comfort. Even now, cities account
for about 67% of the global energy consumption, are responsible for
more than 70% of all greenhouse gas emissions [2] and consume
around 75% of all natural resources [3].
In this context, the building sector is accountable for about 40%
of the annual global energy consumption and contributes approx-
imately 30% to the global annual emissions of greenhouse gases
[4].
Life cycle analysis (LCA) addresses the environmental aspects
and potential environmental impacts throughout a product’s life
cycle including the production, use and end-of-life stages. In ISO
14040 and 14044, the requirements for conducting a LCA are
defined [5,6]. The results can be displayed in various impact cat-
egories, e.g. primary energy demand or greenhouse gas emissions.
For the analysis, different types of software can be used, for example
GaBi or Umberto.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: verenaweiler@web.de (V. Weiler).
Since the operational energy, needed during the use stage of a
building, accounts for the largest share of energy demand during
the entire lifespan of a building [7], a lot of research was done to
lower the operational energy demand.
In addition, levels and standards for efficient buildings are con-
tinuously tightening due to stronger regulations, for example in
Germany and California (USA) [8,9]. With these new standards for
efficient buildings, the energy demand and resulting emissions dur-
ing the use stage are decreasing. At the same time, the energy
needed during the production stage is increasing because of the
higher material input, e.g. for insulation materials produced with
a substantial amount of energy. Consequently, the energy ratio is
gradually shifting from the use stage to the production stage. Sev-
eral studies can be found which also point out these facts [10–12]. It
is important to mention that the values for the energy consumption
during the various life cycle stages differ between all these studies.
Those differences are caused for example by the different climate
zones in which the buildings are located, the considered lifespan of
the buildings or the kind of building materials used for construction
[13].
Consequently, buildings should be evaluated with regard to
their whole life cycle, which includes the production and end-of-
life stages, and not only based on the energy demand during the
use stage.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.11.004
0378-7788/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
320 V. Weiler et al. / Energy and Buildings 134 (2017) 319–328
Quite a lot of research has been conducted in this thematic area,
however most of the studies are linked to individual buildings and
case studies [14–16]. As a result, these specific studies do not allow
a direct transfer of the methodology to other buildings and cities.
The methodology in this paper is rather focused on generic data
than on specific data for one building only. For example the trans-
port distance of building materials is the same average value for all
materials and not related to a specific region. Like this, the data can
be used for different projects in different regions.
The goal is to develop and verify a method for calculating the dif-
ferent life cycle stages production, use and end-of-life of a building.
To achieve this, the calculated values for energy and emissions for
different building materials for the two life cycle stages production
and end-of-life are integrated in a simulation platform for urban
energy demand named SimStadt [17]. SimStadt was developed to
simulate the energy needed during the use stage of a building or
city quarter and was extended by this work to calculate the values
for embodied energy and greenhouse gases as well as the energy
needed and greenhouse gases emitted during the disposal of the
materials used in a building. SimStadt is designed to analyse not
only one building, but to evaluate whole city quarters, cities and
even regions. Since the methodology of this research is based on
generic data, it can be extended and applied in future studies. This
allows an assessment and comparison of different city quarters.
2. Methodology
The aim of the methodology is to define the scope of the life cycle
assessment of a building. Consequently, values for the embodied
energy and embodied greenhouse gases as well as values for the
energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted during the disposal
of building materials can be calculated. By bringing these values in
relation to the operational primary energy demand, an evaluation
and comparison of the entire life cycle of different building cases
can be made.
2.1. Approach and definitions
The chosen approach for the calculation of the mentioned val-
ues is cradle-to-grave, which means that all stages of the life cycle
of the building materials are taken into account. Material and ener-
getic flows are crossing the system boundary on the input side;
emissions to air, water and soil are crossing the system boundary
on the output side, as can be seen in Fig. 1.
The chosen allocation method is cut-off, which means that the
initial or first production of a material is always allocated to the pri-
mary user of the material. At the end-of-life, the primary user of a
material does not receive any credit if the material is recycled. Addi-
tionally it does not receive any credit for results out of any waste
treatment, e.g. for heat generated through municipal incineration.
This means that waste leaves the system without any associated
burdens [18].
The terms ‘embodied energy’ and ‘embodied greenhouse gases’
and ‘energy needed for disposal’ and ‘greenhouse gases emitted
during disposal’ are based on the definition of the ‘cumu-
lative energy demand (CED)’, in German called ‘kumulierter
Energieaufwand (KEA)’ (see Eq. (1)) published in the guideline ‘VDI
4600’ by ‘Verein Deutscher Ingenieure’[19].
CED = CEDP + CEDU + CEDD (1)
CED: cumulative energy demand [kWh/kg], CEDP : cumulative
energy demand for production [kWh/kg], CEDU : cumulative energy
demand for use [kWh/m2 ], CEDD : cumulative energy demand for
disposal [kWh/kg].
Since the definition of each cumulative energy demand is rather
broad and leaves room for interpretation, more specific definitions
are needed to specify the energy and emission values.
The embodied energy and embodied greenhouse gases of the
production stage are based on the definition of the CEDP and are
further defined by dividing the production stage into more specific
stages. The energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted during
the end-of-life stage are based on the definition of the CEDD and
are also further defined by dividing the end-of-life stage into more
specific stages. During the use stage, no energy is needed for the
building materials and consequently the CEDU is, for reasons of
completeness, taken into account with the value zero.
The three life cycle stages are divided into seven substages (see
Fig. 2). The different material and energetic flows are assigned to
the life cycle stages mentioned below.
Production stage: The production stage consists of the extrac-
tion of raw materials and manufacturing of building materials, the
transportation of the materials to site and their assembly. In case
of refurbishment, the additional energy and greenhouse gases for
the refurbishment process are added to the assembly substage.
The combination of the values from each substage amounts to the
embodied energy related to 1 kg of building material and 1 m2 of
window area respectively with the unit kWh/kg and kWh/m2 . The
windows need to be assessed by their area instead of their weight,
since SimStadt uses this unit for the calculation. Subsequently the
embodied greenhouse gases result from the addition of the respec-
tive emissions from these substages. The units are kg CO2 -eq./kg
and kg CO2 -eq./m2 . The carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 -eq.) is a
unit which indicates the global warming potential of a product or a
process. It is composed of different greenhouse gases (e.g. methane,
ozone or nitrous gases) and the value is converted to the amount of
CO2 which would have the same global warming potential as CO2
alone.
Use stage: Use is the only substage during the use stage. The unit
is kWh/m2 and refers to the heated floor area.
End-of-life stage: The end-of-life stage consists of the demo-
lition of the building, the transportation of waste materials and
their following treatment. The combination of the values from these
substages results in the energy related to the disposal of 1 kg build-
ing material and 1 m2 of window area respectively with the unit
kWh/kg and kWh/m2 ; the greenhouse gases emitted during dis-
posal result from the addition of the respective emissions from
these substages. The units are kg CO2 -eq./kg and kg CO2 -eq./m2 .
2.2. Software and assumptions
Different types of software are used to calculate the values
needed for the assessment of the life cycle of buildings and city
quarters.
The software SimStadt [17], developed at the University of
Applied Sciences Stuttgart, uses a CityGML-file, which includes a 3D
model of a building or city quarter. The software links this model to
a building physics library, which includes the material composition
of various building types.
This library is based on a study called ‘Deutsche Wohnge-
bäudetypologie’ published by ‘Institut Wohnen und Umwelt (IWU)’
[20]. Contents of this study are among others several building
types sorted by different periods of time, starting in 1859 up to
newly constructed buildings as of 2016, including different ener-
getic standards like the minimal requirements according to the
German Energy Saving Ordinance [8] and higher standards. The
KfW (‘Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau’) [21] grants different types
of credit according to the energetic standard of the newly con-
structed building. Also included are two different refurbishment
standards for existing buildings; ‘medium refurbishment’ corre-
sponds roughly to a standard between KfW70 and KfW100 and
 V. Weiler et al. / Energy and Buildings 134 (2017) 319–328 321

Fig. 1. System boundaries and approach of the model.

Fig. 2. Life cycle stages divided into substages.

‘advanced refurbishment’ corresponds roughly to a passive house Table 1

Building specifications.
standard. Furthermore, specific construction types of different
building elements are defined, e.g. the wall structure and materials Usage Multi family house
used in a specific building type and building age. Heated floor area [m2 ] 1635
Ground area [m2 ] 227
SimStadt is normally used for calculating e.g. the heat demand
Outer wall area [m2 ] 712
or photovoltaic potential for buildings or city quarters. In this work, Window area [m2 ] 337
the functionality of SimStadt has been extended for calculating and Flat roof [m2 ] 227
analysing the embodied energy and greenhouse gases as well as the Storeys 6
energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted during the disposal of
building materials based on the material composition of a building,
e.g. the amount of reinforced concrete built in a specific building or
city quarter. building physics library. At this point it is important to mention
To assess the difference between several building types, a spe- that the GML-file with the 3D model only maps the building shell
cific real building geometry from a Stuttgart city quarter case study and no internal walls or ceilings. Since the goal is the comparison
was chosen for analysis (see Fig. 3 and Table 1). Based on this spe- of different building cases, this simplification does not affect the
cific building, four different cases are defined. relative results.
For each case, SimStadt calculates the material composition of For the calculation, always the same building geometry is used
the building by using the mentioned CityGML-file with the 3D as a basis. In further individual steps different years of construc-
model of the building and the year of construction (including or tion and building standards are attributed to the building. The four
not including refurbishment) of the building and linking it with the considered cases are:
322 V. Weiler et al. / Energy and Buildings 134 (2017) 319–328
Fig. 3. Specific building of Olga city quarter, Stuttgart, Germany, as basis for different
use cases.
- Multi family house constructed in 1975 as an existing building
with no refurbishment
- Multi family house constructed in 1975 with medium refur-
bishment; building corresponds roughly to a standard between
KfW70 and KfW100
- Multi family house constructed in 1975 with advanced refurbish-
ment; building corresponds roughly to a passive house standard
- Multi family house, newly constructed in 2016 with KfW70 stan-
dard
In this study the lifespan for the buildings is set to 50 years
[15,22,23]. According to a review done by Cabeza et al. [11], this
time period is considered in the majority of their studied papers.
The refurbished building cases are considered only after their
refurbishment in 2016 with a lifespan of 50 years. Like this, they
can be compared to the newly constructed building with the same
lifespan. Additionally, the refurbished building cases need to be
attributed with a certain percentage of the construction energy
and thereby emitted greenhouse gases correlating to the amount
of material that is added during refurbishment.
No additional renovation like exchanging of windows is consid-
ered during the lifespan of 50 years.
To calculate the material specific values for embodied energy
and greenhouse gases as well as the energy needed and greenhouse
gases emitted during disposal, the software for life cycle assess-
ment Umberto, developed by the German ifu institute in Hamburg
[24], with the ecoinvent 3.2 database is used to set up models for
the different building materials. The ecoinvent database is a life
cycle inventory database, founded by institutes of ETH Zuerich and
Swiss federal offices [18]. The different models in Umberto and con-
sequently the resulting data always refer to the functional unit of
1 kg building material or 1 m2 window area respectively.
As can be seen in Fig. 4, each specific model consists of seven
substages, corresponding to the main life cycle stages production,
use and end-of-life. In Umberto the workflow is generated by using
and linking different processes that are either created individu-
ally or chosen from the ecoinvent database. These processes are
assigned to the different life cycle substages which allows an anal-
ysis according to these substages.
The challenge of the database use is that some of the materi-
als are sparsely documented with multiple options (for example
wooden fibreboards often do not have density values indicated),
which makes it difficult to assign the proper material to a given
building construction.
The specific building material models are created in Umberto by
using the material composition from the building physics library.
The calculated energy and emission values are then implemented
in the building physics library and can be used for the life cycle
assessment in SimStadt.
To create the models in Umberto, different assumptions are
made:
- For the extraction of the raw materials and the manufacturing
of building materials, mainly German and European, otherwise
worldwide datasets are used.
- For the transportation of materials to the construction site and
the transportation of waste materials, a European dataset for a
freight lorry, 16–32 tons with EURO5 limit and a generic distance
of 50 km is used. Although many studies rely on specific distances
of 20–150 km [25–28], in this study it is assumed that both con-
struction companies or producers of building materials as well
as landfill sites for the building material waste are located in the
vicinity, which is around 50 km of major German cities.
- For the assembly of building materials and the demolition of the
building, different energy and emission values, separated in elec-
tricity and diesel needed for building machines, are used. The
value for the energy used for the assembly of the building is cal-
culated as the average value out of four studies [27–30] and is
set on 86.71 kWh/m2 related to the heated floor area (38.15 kg
CO2 -eq./m2 ), related to the heated floor area of the building. The
value for the energy used for the demolition of the building is
calculated as an average from two studies [27,31] and is set on
41.27 kWh/m2 (18.18 kg CO2 -eq./m2 ).
- The treatment of waste is modelled according to the ‘worst-case-
principle’, which means that all the materials go to a sanitary or
material landfill. Consequently, the ‘worst-case-principle’ means
that the building material waste cannot be recycled to secondary
material. All these processes are modelled with Swiss datasets,
since they compare best to German standards.
The following Fig. 5 sums up the description of the interaction
of the different software used in this study.
In the following section, the four building cases are analysed
both according to their life cycle stages and the materials used in
each case and compared according to their material composition,
their primary energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Calculations and results
As illustrated in the last chapter, the values calculated for each
material, namely embodied energy, embodied greenhouse gases,
energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted during disposal, are
obtained from the ecoinvent database and calculated in Umberto.
All these values have been integrated in the SimStadt building
physics library, so that all the materials are accounted for and have
all the relevant values assigned to them.
From SimStadt, a list with the size of all the surface areas of
the outer walls, the roof areas, the ground area and the areas of
the windows can be exported. With this data, the aforementioned
values calculated for the assembly and demolition of the building
as well as the material specific values for embodied energy and
greenhouse gases, the production and end-of-life stages of the life
cycle of a building can be evaluated. Together with the use stage
calculated in SimStadt, an assessment of the whole life cycle of the
building can be made.
 V. Weiler et al. / Energy and Buildings 134 (2017) 319–328 323

Fig. 4. Umberto model of gypsum plasterboard.

Fig. 5. Graphical description of methodology.

3.1. Calculation of material composition
The first step is a comparison of the different material compo-
sition of the four cases. With SimStadt, the size of all areas (roof,
outer walls, ground, windows) can be used in the calculation of the
material composition according to the following Eq. (2):
m=d∗∗a
m: mass [kg], d: thickness [m], ␳: density [kg/m3 ],
a: area In
Tables 2–6 , the highest total amount of building materials, primary
energy or greenhouse gases is set to 100%; the other cases are scaled
accordingly. In Table 2, the material composition of the four differ-
ent cases is displayed. It can be noted that some of the materials
from the older building are not used anymore in the newly con-
structed building. Also, the amount and type of insulation material
differs greatly. In the new building from 2016, more than 4300 kg of
EPS 035 and EPS 040 are used in the different building parts, com-
pared to only 142 kg EPS in the same building of 1975. However,
the two refurbished building cases even need bigger amounts of
insulation material than the newly constructed building. Including
the foam glass that is used as insulation in the flat roof from 1975,
about 20% more insulation is used in the building with medium
refurbishment and almost 100% more in the building with advanced
(2) refurbishment compared to the new building.
[m2 ]. Since the insulation for the two cases of refurbishment of the
building from 1975 was only put on top of the existing structures,
roofing felt and rendering are about double the amount of the non-
refurbished building from 1975.
Some of the masses are the same in each building case, for exam-
ple the amount of cement screed or gypsum plasterboard, which is
evident due to the same geometry of the four building cases.

Table 2
Material composition of different building cases in kg.

2016 KfW70 1975 1975 MedRef 1975 AdvRef

Cement screed 19,026 19,026 19,026 19,026

EPS 035/040 4304 142 3410 6792
Foam glass 1699 1699 1699
Gypsum plasterboard 6764 6764 6764 6764
Honeycomb brick 175,437 175,437 175,437
Reinforced concrete 540,053 157,282 157,282 157,282
Rendering 9462 9462 18,925 18,925
Roofing felt 4349 4349 10,872 10,872
Window (different types) 10,750 11,574 9032 10,750
TOTAL 594,708 385,734 402,446 407,546
Percentage 100% 65% 68% 69%
324 V. Weiler et al. / Energy and Buildings 134 (2017) 319–328

The window types and consequently the weights of the win-
dows are different in each of the building cases, e.g. in the newly
constructed building triple glazing is used compared to double glaz-
ing in the old building cases.
3.2. Calculation of embodied energy of building materials
The next steps are the calculation of embodied energy (Table 3),
embodied greenhouse gases (Table 4), energy needed for disposal
(Table 5) and greenhouse gases emitted during disposal (Table 6)
of the building materials of the four different cases. The values
for embodied energy and greenhouse gases include the extraction
of raw materials and their transportation to the construction site,
whereas the energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted during
the disposal include the transportation to the facility and the end-
of-life treatment. The energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted
during the construction and refurbishment of the building cases are
not yet included in these tables and are added in a separate step at
the end of the calculation.
To calculate the embodied energy, the material specific embod-
ied energy values from Umberto are multiplied with the material
composition from Table 2. The results from this calculation can be
seen in Table 3.
When comparing the total embodied energy of the differ-
ent cases, the building from 1975 with advanced refurbishment
reaches the highest amount of embodied energy. There is a great
difference between the two different refurbished cases, which is
mainly due to the amount of insulation used. Over 60% more EPS
and a better window type is used in the building with advanced
refurbishment compared to the building with medium refurbish-
ment, which corresponds to an increase in total embodied energy
of about 15%.
The building from 1975 in its non-refurbished state has the least
amount of embodied energy, since there is generally less insula-
tion material and also reinforced concrete, which accounts for a
considerable part of the embodied energy.
3.3. Calculation of embodied greenhouse gases of building
materials
The calculation of embodied greenhouse gases works in the
same way as the calculation of embodied energy: the material
specific values for embodied greenhouse gases from Umberto are
multiplied with the material composition from Table 2. Table 4
shows the results of this calculation.

Table 3
Embodied primary energy of different building materials in kWh.

2016 KfW70 1975 1975 MedRef 1975 AdvRef

Cement screed 6906 6906 6906 6906

EPS 035/040 117,077 3851 92,761 184,751
Foam glass 15,352 15,352 15,352
Gypsum plasterboard 10,883 10,883 10,883 10,883
Honeycomb brick 135,964 135,964 135,964
Reinforced concrete 246,264 71,720 71,720 71,720
Rendering 2016 2016 4031 4031
Roofing felt 53,956 53,956 134,889 134,889
Window (different types) 164,786 137,047 149,235 164,786
TOTAL 601,888 437,694 621,741 729,282
Percentage 83% 60% 85% 100%

Table 4
Embodied greenhouse gases of different building materials in kg CO2 -eq.

2016 KfW70 1975 1975 MedRef 1975 AdvRef

Cement screed 3767 3767 3767 3767

EPS 035/040 16,476 542 13,054 25,999
Foam glass 3462 3462 3462
Gypsum plasterboard 2895 2895 2895 2895
Honeycomb brick 24,210 24,210 24,210
Reinforced concrete 96,129 27,996 27,996 27,996
Rendering 549 549 1098 1098
Roofing felt 3688 3688 9219 9219
Window (different types) 23,374 25,372 19,357 23,374
TOTAL 146,878 92,481 105,058 122,021
Percentage 100% 63% 72% 83%

Table 5
Primary energy needed for disposal of different building materials in kWh.

2016 KfW70 1975 1975 MedRef 1975 AdvRef

Cement screed 2245 2245 2245 2245

EPS 035/040 491 16 389 774
Foam glass 141 141 141
Gypsum plasterboard 758 758 758 758
Honeycomb brick 19,649 19,649 19,649
Reinforced concrete 44,824 13,054 13,054 13,054
Rendering 927 927 1855 1855
Roofing felt 509 509 1272 1272
Window (different types) 1082 1064 2007 2146
TOTAL 50,836 38,363 41,369 41,894
Percentage 100% 75% 81% 82%
 V. Weiler et al. / Energy and Buildings 134 (2017) 319–328 325

Table 6
Greenhouse gases emitted during the disposal of different building materials in kg CO2 -eq.

2016 KfW70 1975 1975 MedRef 1975 AdvRef

Cement screed 323 323 323 323

EPS 035/040 551 18 436 869
Foam glass 24 24 24
Gypsum plasterboard 122 122 122 122
Honeycomb brick 3158 3158 3158
Reinforced concrete 7561 2202 2202 2202
Rendering 161 161 322 322
Roofing felt 470 470 1174 1174
Window (different types) 1170 536 1685 1706
TOTAL 10,357 7014 9446 9900
Percentage 100% 68% 91% 96%

The total sum of embodied greenhouse gases is highest for the Table 7
Construction and demolition energy and greenhouse gases per m2 heated floor area.
newly constructed building from 2016. This is interesting, because
the embodied energy is highest for the building from 1975 with Electrical Diesel
advanced refurbishment (see Table 3). This can mainly be explained Construction energy [kWh/m ]2
30.35 56.36
by the use of honeycomb bricks as the main structural building Construction greenhouse gases [kg CO2 -eq./m2 ] 19.32 18.86
material. The embodied energy of honeycomb bricks is more than Demolition energy [kWh/m2 ] 14.45 26.83
double the embodied energy of the reinforced concrete, whereas Demolition greenhouse gases [kg CO2 -eq./m2 ] 9.20 8.98

the embodied greenhouse gases are about 30% higher for the rein-
forced concrete. Therefore, the use of reinforced concrete instead of
honeycomb bricks means less embodied energy, but more embod-
ied greenhouse gases.
3.4. Calculation of energy needed for the disposal of building
materials
The energy needed for disposal is calculated in the same way
that has been applied to the calculations before: the material
specific values for energy needed for disposal from Umberto are
multiplied with the material composition from Table 2. The results
in Table 5 show that the difference in energy needed between
the refurbished and non-refurbished building cases from 1975 are
only minimal (only about 6% and 7% respectively). Contrary to the
calculation of embodied energy (see Table 3), the highest sum is
attributed to the building constructed in 2016, which is also due to
the higher amount of reinforced concrete used in the new building.
burned in building machines is obtained from the aforementioned
research papers. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted during
the construction of the building is calculated in Umberto.
The two refurbished building cases from 1975 are attributed
with a percentage of the construction energy and greenhouse gases
correlating to the amount of material that is added during refur-
bishment. In this case, the total mass of building materials is 5%
higher for the building with medium refurbishment compared to
the original building, therefore 5% of the total construction energy
and greenhouse gases of the 1975 building are used as refurbish-
ment energy and greenhouse gases. The same method applies to
the building with advanced refurbishment, with a percentage of
6%.
3.7. Life cycle analysis

3.5. Calculation of greenhouse gases emitted during the disposal
of building materials
Also this last set of values is calculated according to the same
method: the material specific values for greenhouse gases emit-
ted during disposal from Umberto are multiplied with the material
composition from Table 2. As can be seen in Table 6, the proportions
of the sums for the four different building cases are similar to the
energy needed for disposal in Table 5. The highest sum is attributed
to the newly constructed building, the least amount of greenhouse
gases is emitted during the disposal of the non-refurbished building
from 1975.
3.6. Integration of construction and demolition energy and
greenhouse gases
The next important step is to integrate the amounts of energy
needed and greenhouse gases emitted for the construction, refur-
bishment and demolition of the building cases from 1975 and 2016
respectively.
There are not many scientific papers that evaluate the energy
needed for construction, refurbishment and demolition of build-
ings. Therefore, specific values from four different case studies
[27–30] are used to determine a mean value for the construction
of one square metre heated floor area of a building (see Table 7).
Also, a ratio between the amount of electrical energy and diesel
The final step is the comparison of the primary energy and
greenhouse gases considered during the whole life cycle, which
means the three stages production, use and end-of-life.
The production stage includes the embodied energy and
greenhouse gases of the materials resulting from extraction, manu-
facturing and transportation of the materials, as well as the energy
used and greenhouse gases emitted during construction and refur-
bishment of the building.
In case of the refurbished buildings, two approaches are con-
sidered: in the first approach (e.g. 1975 MedRef all), the embodied
energy and greenhouse gases of the building materials of the orig-
inal building from 1975 are used and additional embodied energy
and greenhouse gases are added for the refurbishment process. This
means the replacement of the old double glazed windows from
1975 with new windows (low-e coated double glazed windows
for the medium refurbishment and low-e coated triple glazed win-
dows for the advanced refurbishment) and the adding of insulation.
The energy used for the refurbishment and the emitted greenhouse
gases are also included. This allows to compare for example an
existing refurbished building with a newly constructed building.
The second approach (e.g. 1975 MedRef onlyRef) allows to com-
pare the refurbishment of an existing building to a demolition and
new construction. Here only the additional embodied energy and
emissions of the refurbishment material and corresponding energy
and emissions during the refurbishment process are considered.
Depending on the point of view, both approaches can be useful to
326 V. Weiler et al. / Energy and Buildings 134 (2017) 319–328

assess the differences between the building cases and refurbish-
ments.
The use stage considers the energy needed and greenhouse
gases emitted for space heating and domestic hot water over a
lifespan of 50 years. The use stage of the existing building before
refurbishment is not considered. The heating system is assumed to
be a gas boiler with a nominal efficiency of 0.9.
The end-of-life stage considers the energy needed and green-
house gases emitted during demolition of the buildings and the
transportation and treatment of the waste. For the refurbished
buildings, it also includes the disposal of the old windows. The
results and corresponding percentages can be seen in Table 8 and
Fig. 5 for primary energy and Table 9 for greenhouse gas emissions.
Comparing the two refurbished building cases it can be seen that
a better refurbishment leads to a lower share of the use stage of the
total primary energy during the whole life cycle and a higher share
of the production stage. At the same time it can be observed that
the primary energy demand during the use stage of the refurbished
buildings is reduced by half and more, compared to the original
building.
The energy needed for disposal in the end-of-life stage accounts
only for about 2% or less in all different building cases and has
no effect on the comparison. This is due to the chosen allocation
method ‘cut-off’ which is explained in the methodology.
Looking at the use stage of the different building cases, it can
be seen that a building with medium refurbishment has a slightly
lower primary energy demand than the KfW100 building standard
but not as low as the KfW70 building standard (Fig. 6).
The same calculation and comparison is made for the green-
house gases emitted during the whole life cycle. The results can be
seen in Table 9.
The proportions of the greenhouse gas emissions between the
different building cases and life cycle stages in Table 9 are similar
to the proportions of the primary energy in Table 8. The emis-
sions are highest during the use stage of the non-refurbished
building from 1975, and lowest for the building from 1975 with
advanced refurbishment. This corresponds to the highest per-
centage of the production stage for the building with advanced
refurbishment.
4. Discussion
In the previous section, the values for energy and greenhouse
gases, separated in the different life cycle stages, of the four building
cases are presented.
It is clearly shown that the share of the life cycle stages produc-
tion and end-of-life compared to the total value, rises with a better
refurbishment or building standard. This is mainly due to the addi-
tional amount of building materials, which also rises with better
refurbishment or building standard, primarily in form of extra insu-
lation material and the exchange of windows with a high value for
embodied energy and greenhouse gases. The additional material
input for a refurbishment also results in a lower energy demand
during the entire use stage of 50 years, which means a reduction
by half or more compared to the original building.
With the use of extra insulation material the question of ener-
getic amortisation needs to be addressed. The periods for the
energetic amortisation for the refurbishments are quite short
and similar. The input of the additional building materials for
an advanced and medium refurbishment takes approximately 4.5
years to break even.
Comparing the whole life cycle, the values for energy and
greenhouse gases of the KfW70 building are situated between the
building cases with medium and advanced refurbishment.
This leads to the challenge of evaluating the difference between
refurbishing existing buildings or their demolition and reconstruc-
tion. The period for the energetic amortisation of the demolition of
the original building from 1975 plus the following construction of a
new building with KfW70 standard is approximately 7.5 years. Con-
sequently, from the energetic point of view in this case it is better to
refurbish an existing building than to demolish it and reconstruct
with a better standard.

Table 8
Comparison of primary energy during the whole life cycle in kWh.

Production Use End-of-life TOTAL

1975 576,352 10,570,900 104,374 11,251,626

5.1% 94.0% 0.9% 100%
1975 MedRef all 908,539 5,568,250 110,424 6,587,213
13.8% 84.5% 1.7% 100%
1975 MedRef OnlyRef 470,845 5,568,250 110,424 6,149,519
7.7% 90.5% 1.8% 100%
1975 AdvRef all 1,017,466 4,512,500 110,949 5,497,581
18.0% 80.0% 2.0% 100%
1975 AdvRef OnlyRef 579,845 4,512,500 110,949 5,203,221
11.1% 86.8% 2.1% 100%
2016 KfW70 740,546 5,053,650 116,847 5,911,043
12.5% 85.5% 2.0% 100%

Table 9
Comparison of greenhouse gases emitted during the whole life cycle in kg CO2 -eq.

Production Use End-of-life TOTAL

1975 153,567 2,950,200 36,086 3,139,852

4.9% 94.0% 1.1% 100%
1975 MedRef all 196,402 1,554,000 39,926 1,790,329
11.0% 86.8% 2.2% 100%
1975 MedRef OnlyRef 103,921 1,554,000 39,926 1,697,848
6.1% 91.5% 2.4% 100%
1975 AdvRef all 213,976 1,259,350 40,380 1,513,707
14.1% 83.2% 2.7% 100%
1975 AdvRef OnlyRef 121,495 1,259,350 40,380 1,421,226
8.5% 88.7% 2.8% 100%
2016 KfW70 207,964 1,410,400 39,429 1,657,792
12.5% 85.1% 2.4% 100%
 V. Weiler et al. / Energy and Buildings 134 (2017) 319–328 327

Fig. 6. Comparison of primary energy during the whole life cycle of two building cases.

Considering the savings of energy and greenhouse gases during
the whole life cycle, an advanced refurbishment is more worth-
while than a medium refurbishment or a demolition and new
construction of a building with KfW70 standard. However, if eco-
nomic factors are also taken into account, the goal of saving a
maximum of energy and greenhouse gases could conflict with the
goal to fulfil economic claims.
5. Conclusion and perspectives
A method for calculating the different life cycle stages produc-
tion, use and end-of-life of a building or city quarter was developed
in this work. 3D urban geometry data based on the CityGML stan-
dard was used for all simulations. The workflows were set up in
the simulation platform SimStadt to evaluate the building heating
energy demand and related greenhouse gas emissions over a given
lifetime. Moreover, generic data for embodied energy and green-
house gases as well as energy needed and greenhouse gases emitted
during disposal were implemented in the building physics library of
SimStadt. This allows an integral comparison between city quarters
with different energy systems, different building ages or different
locations of the city quarter.
The method was tested and verified on four building cases with
different insulation standards and a comparison between building
refurbishment or building demolition and new construction was
carried out.
The main result of the analysis was that the highest building
refurbishment standard resulted in the best life cycle energy and
328 V. Weiler et al. / Energy and Buildings 134 (2017) 319–328
emission performance when compared with less ambitious refur-
bishment or construction of a new building of today’s standards.
It can be observed that the energy demand in the use stage
decreases for newly constructed or refurbished buildings compared
to existing non refurbished old buildings, when at the same time
their production stage increases. These effects are due to the higher
amount of insulation and other building material used in newly
constructed or refurbished buildings.
With high levels of insulation, as in the advanced refurbishment
scenario, the energy demand in the use stage decreases to a similar
level as for the newly constructed building. As the buildings to be
refurbished only need production stage energy for the insulation
material, their overall share of production energy is significantly
lower than for the new buildings.
The choice of materials for buildings has an influence on the
embodied energy and greenhouse gases. For example the use
of reinforced concrete instead of honeycomb bricks means less
embodied energy but more embodied greenhouse gases.
The use of generic data enables an analysis of different case
studies under various circumstances.
Based on the new methodology and simulation framework, the
whole life cycle of city quarters can be analysed by calculating
their energy and greenhouse gas values. The results can be used
for giving recommendations for action to policymakers, building
authorities or building owners. Designing sustainable city quarters
will make an important contribution to saving energy and emitting
less greenhouse gases in the context of ongoing urbanisation.
Acknowledgements
For this work, software and database licenses for Umberto and
ecoinvent were provided by the Institute for Industrial Ecology
(INEC) of the University of Applied Sciences Pforzheim. The authors
would like to thank Mario Schmidt and Heidi Hottenroth from INEC
for their expert knowledge and support.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] World Economic and Social Survey,“ United Nations, New York, 2013.”.
[2] “Sustainable Urban Futures,” United Nations University, Institute for
Advanced Study of Sustainability, 30 June 2016. [Online]. Available: http://
urban.ias.unu.edu/index.php/cities-and-climate-change/. (Accessed 5 July
2016).
[3] Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, Managing
Urbanisation –Towards Sustainable Cities, Federal Ministry for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Berlin, 2014.
[4] Sustainable Buildings & Climate Initiative, Buildings and Climate Change,“
UNEP SBCI, Sustainable Buildings & Climate Initiative, Paris, 2009.
[5] DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V, “DIN EN ISO 14040: Environmental
management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework,” 2009.
[6] DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V, “DIN EN ISO 14044: Environmental
management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines,” 2006.
[7] R. Assiego de Larriva, G. Calleja Rodríguez, J.M. Cejudo López, M. Raugei, P.
Fullana i Palmer, A decision-making LCA for energy refurbisment of buildings:
conditions of comfort, Energy Build. 70 (2014) 333–342 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enbuild.2013.11.049.
[8] Energy Saving Ordinance - Energieeinsparverordnung (EnEV), 2013.
[9] California Energy Commission, 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for
Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Energy Commission,
California, 2015.
[10] G. Verbeeck, H. Hens, Life Cycle Inventory of Buildings: A Calculation Method,
Building and Environment 45 (2010) 1037–1041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2009.10.012.
[11] L.F. Cabeza, L. Rincón, V. Vilariño, A. Castell, Life cycle assessment (LCA) and
life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: a
review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29 (2014) 394–416 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2013.08.037.
[12] J. Monahan, J. Powell, An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern
methods of construction in housing: a case study using a lifecycle assessment
framework, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 179–188 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2010.09.005.
[13] B. Rossi, A.-F.S. Marique, S. Reiter, Life-cycle assessment of residential
buildings in three different European locations, case study, Build. Environ. 51
(2012) 402–407 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.11.002.
[14] −G.A. Blengini, T. Di Carlo, The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems
and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings, Energy Build. 42 (2009)
869–880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.009.
[15] C. Thomark, The effect of material choice on the total energy need and
recycling potential of a building, Build. Environ. 41 (2006) 1019–1026 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.026.
[16] A. Takano, S. Kumar Pal, M. Kuittinen, K. Alanne, M.S. Hughes und Winter, The
effect of material selection on life cycle energy balance: a case study on
hypothetical building model in Finland, Build. Environ. 89 (2015) 192–202
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.03.001.
[17] “SimStadt Project, Energiesimulation von Stadtquartieren,” National German
Project, June 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.simstadt.eu/de/index.
html. (Accessed 15 June 2016).
[18] “ecoinvent lifecycle inventory database,” ecoinvent, June 2016. [Online].
Available: http://www.ecoinvent.org/. (Accessed 23 June 2016).
[19] VDI-Richtlinie, Cumulative energy demand (KEA), Düsseldorf: Verein
Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., 2012.
[20] B. Loga, N. Diefenbach, R. Born, Deutsche Wohngebäudetypologie, IWU–
Institut Wohnen und Umwelt, Darmstadt, 2015.
[21] “KfW Bank,” Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.kfw.de/kfw.de.html. (Accessed 15 June 2016).
[22] C. Thomark, A low energy building in a life cycle – its embodied energy, energy
need for operation and recycling potential, Build. Environ. 37 (2002) 429–435.
[23] M. Wallhagen, M. Glaumann, T. Malmqvist, Basic building life cycle
calculations to decrease contribution to climate change – Case stuy on an
office building in Sweden, Build. Environ. 46 (2011) 1863–1871 http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.02.003.
[24] “Umberto,” ifu Hamburg, June 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.ifu.
com/umberto/. (Accessed 23 June 2016).
[25] D. Kellenberger, H.-J. Althaus, Relevance of simplification in LCA of building
components, Build. Environ. 44 (2009) 818–825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2008.06.002.
[26] B. Rossi, A.-F. Marique, M. Glaumann, S. Reiter, Life-cycle assessment of
residential buildings in three different European locations, basic tool, Build.
Environ. 51 (2012) 395–401 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.11.
017.
[27] R.M. Cuéllar-Franca, A. Azapagic, Environmental impacts of the UK residential
sector: life cycle assessment of houses, Build. Environ. 54 (2012) 86–99 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.02.005.
[28] G.A. Blengini, Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: a
case study in Turin, Italy, Build. Environ. 44 (2007) 319–330 http://dx.doi.
org//10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.03.007.
[29] S. Xiang, Z. Xu, A detail analysis of the embodied energy and carbon emissions
of steel-construction residential buildings in China, Energy Build. 119 (2016)
323–330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.03.070.
[30] M. Helmus, S. Niscancioglu, A.C. Randel, Entwicklung von Energiekonzepten
zur Steigerung der Energieeffizienz und Reduzierung des CO2-Aussoßes auf
Baustellen, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, 2011.
[31] R.S. Srinivasan, W. Ingwersen, C. Trucco, R. Ries, D. Campbell, Comparison of
energy-based indicators used in life cycle assessment tools for buildings,
Build. Environ. 79 (2014) 138–151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.
05.006.