Ecological Footprint of Residential Buildings in Composite Climate of India-A Case Study

sustainability
Article
Ecological Footprint of Residential Buildings in Composite
Climate of India—A Case Study
Ashok Kumar 1,2, * , Pardeep Singh 3 , Nishant Raj Kapoor 1,2 , Chandan Swaroop Meena 1,2, * , Kshitij Jain 4 ,
Kishor S. Kulkarni 1,2 and Raffaello Cozzolino 5, *
1 CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee 247667, India; dr.nrkapoor@outlook.com (N.R.K.);

kishorsk@cbri.res.in (K.S.K.)
2 Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India
3 Institute of Environmental Studies, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra 136119, India;
pradeepslathia@gmail.com
4 Department of Computer Science Engineering, College of Engineering, Roorkee 247667, India;
kshitijj4@gmail.com
5 Department of Engineering, University of Rome Niccolò Cusano, 00166 Roma, Italy
* Correspondence: ashokkumar@cbri.res.in (A.K.); chandan@cbri.res.in (C.S.M.);
raffaello.cozzolino@unicusano.it (R.C.)
Abstract: Buildings are accountable for waste generation, utilization of natural resources, and
ecological contamination. The construction sector is one of the biggest consumers of resources
available naturally and is responsible for significant CO2 emissions on the planet. The effects of the
buildings on the environment are commonly determined using Life Cycle Assessments (LCA). The
investigation and comparison of the Life Cycle Ecological Footprint (LCEF) and Life Cycle Energy

(LCE) of five residential buildings situated in the composite climatic zone of India is presented
Citation: Kumar, A.; Singh, P.; in this study. The utilization of resources (building materials) along with developing a mobile
Kapoor, N.R.; Meena, C.S.; Jain, K.; application and a generic model to choose low emission material is the uniqueness of this study. The
Kulkarni, K.S.; Cozzolino, R. utilization of eco-friendly building materials and how these are more efficient than conventional
Ecological Footprint of Residential building materials are also discussed. In this investigation, the two approaches, (a) Life Cycle Energy
Buildings in Composite Climate of
Assessment (LCEA) and (b) Life Cycle Ecological Footprint (LCEF), are discussed to evaluate the
India—A Case Study. Sustainability
impacts of building materials on the environment. The energy embedded due to the materials used
2021, 13, 11949. https://doi.org/
in a building is calculated to demonstrate the prevalence of innovative construction techniques over
10.3390/su132111949
traditional materials. The generic model developed to assess the LCEA of residential buildings in
Academic Editor: Guido Marseglia the composite climate of India and the other results show that the utilization of low-energy building
materials brings about a significant decrease in the LCEF and the LCE of the buildings. The results
Received: 23 July 2021 are suitable for a similar typology of buildings elsewhere in different climatic zone as well. The
Accepted: 26 October 2021 MATLAB model presented will help researchers globally to follow-up or replicate the study in their
Published: 28 October 2021 country. The developed user-friendly mobile application will enhance the awareness related to
energy, environment, ecology, and sustainable development in the general public. This study can
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral help in understanding and thus reducing the ecological burden of building materials, eventually
with regard to jurisdictional claims in leading towards sustainable development.
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. Keywords: life cycle energy assessment; ecological footprint; embodied energy; residential building;
operational energy; composite climate; mobile application
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 1. Introduction
This article is an open access article
In developing countries, there is rapid urbanization taking place that requires a large
distributed under the terms and
amount of energy with a compelling substantial impact through the generation of waste,
conditions of the Creative Commons
emissions of greenhouse gases, etc. [1]. The building industry is at fault for the total
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
primary energy utilization of about 45% and CO2 emissions of about 40% globally [2]. The
4.0/).
preceding decade has seen a rapid rise in the Indian construction industry. From 2001 to
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111949 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 11949 2 of 25
2011, the housing stock in India has increased tremendously [3], and the “Housing for All”
scheme of the Government of India targets two million Pucca houses for all by the year
2023 [4]. About 40% of the electrical energy is utilized in buildings in India [5]. The previous
research indicates that the operational energy primarily used to maintain good indoor
environmental quality in building stock is majorly responsible for energy and natural
resource consumption followed by the construction industry [6,7]. The results presented
by Praseeda and Reddy [8] show that annual operational energy in the composite climate
is 0.04–0.22 GJ/m2 /yr., in the warm humid climate is 0.03–0.04 GJ/m2 /yr., in the moderate
climate is 0.01 GJ/m2 /yr., and in the cold climate is 0.06 GJ/m2 /yr. In India, the amount
waste generated annually is about 64 million tons, including construction and demolition
(C&D) waste [9]. However, most of the waste produced after the demolition of buildings
is not recycled and is disposed of in a landfill [10]. So, the recycling and re-utilization
of the aforesaid waste can potentially help in energy-saving, thus resulting in protecting
the environment and resource efficiency. Therefore, buildings materials that form the
major components of civil constructions play an important role in reducing the ecological
footprint. Praseeda and Reddy [8] compared the embodied energy of masonry buildings
and the alternate masonry materials. According to the study, finding renewable alternative
materials for construction and minimising energy expenditure in the construction sector
in general is necessary, but the challenge is to develop techniques to convert solid wastes
and biomass (both woody and non-woody) into construction products with minimal
energy expenditure. Therefore, the Life Cycle Energy Assessment (LCEA) of buildings
is important in reducing the ecological footprint of buildings. Zhixing et al. [11] studied
carbon emissions in various types of buildings, in which the carbon emissions of the
residential buildings are 514.66 kg CO2 e/m3 ; office buildings, 533.69 kg CO2 e/m3 ; and
commercial buildings, 494.19 kg CO2 e/m3 .
The Life Cycle Energy (LCE) of various house types has been studied by Ramesha
and Prakasha [12]. Ten single and multi-story houses were analyzed in the Indian context
in view of their energy-saving potential. Accordingly, the LCE of buildings varied between
230 and 360 kWh/m2 depending on their type and the environmental conditions. The
results indicate that the use of energy-efficient appliances helps in the reduction of LCE.
Albeit, in several research studies, inadequate sample data is gathered, hindering the
expected findings. Garg and Kumar [13] investigated the current energy utilization patterns
in the residential buildings of India. It likewise follows the different activities by the
government to decrease dependence on petroleum derivatives, rating frameworks of green
structures, etc., which influences the energy demand management. Additionally, the
various challenges such as technological barriers, regulatory policy barriers, and financial
barriers are also discussed. Kapoor and Tegar [14] investigated the energy consumption
perception of residents of residential buildings in Bhopal, India. The results show that more
than 80% of residents spend a good amount of energy maintaining the indoor environment
in their homes. Bastianoni et al. [15] focus on calculating the environmental pressure of
the building construction through the use of the Ecological Footprint (EF) by studying and
comparing two types of buildings situated in Italy. It shows that the EF can be reduced by
the use of environment-friendly inexpensive materials, renewable energy resources, etc.
Due to the difficulty in computing, the EF in certain residential building studies does not
include indirectly occupied land areas, construction and demolition waste dumps, and
demolition energy. As a result, the total EF computed may contain some inaccuracies.
Additionally, when performing life cycle evaluations of buildings for EF calculation, the
most often utilized factor is the estimated service life. Because the expected maintenance
and repair intervals and usage stages may change depending on the building materials
utilized, LCA evaluations are subject to uncertainty.
Raj et al. [16] reviewed the relation among energy, the environment, and the economy
to achieve the energy-efficiency in buildings. Architects, designers, and researchers will
be able to consider various building energy optimization scenarios using the framework
presented in this study. Kurian et al. [17] estimated the carbon footprints of residential
buildings using BIM in the warm-humid climate zone of India and found that the opera-
tional stage is responsible for the largest portion of carbon emission in buildings. Kumar
and Suman [18] investigated the building materials used in composite climate to insulate
the building for maintaining thermal comfort and thus reducing operational energy re-
quirements in buildings. According to this study’s findings, 50-mm-thick Elastospray with
conventional roof and walls meets the ECBC standards, but alternative insulation materials
require additional thickness to meet the specified values. Authors construct two prototype
buildings at the CSIR–CBRI campus to confirm the results: one with a typical burned
clay brick wall with reinforced cement concrete roof and 50-mm-thick exterior thermal
insulation, and the other without insulation. The six-month period outcomes for the win-
ter and summer seasons are taken to find the best case in reducing operational energy
with more thermal comfort in a building. In another study, Kumar et al. [19] investigated
low embodied energy sustainable building materials and technologies to reduce the total
LCE of buildings to maintain sustainability. Kumar et al. [20] tested insulation material
in buildings as it is regarded as one of the most efficient methods of achieving energy
savings in buildings. More effective insulation having low thermal conductivity is bene-
ficial in new construction and upgrading old structures. Authors concluded that better
insulating materials can potentially reduce the operational phase energy in any building
irrespective of the age of the building. Saini et al. [21] nudge the idea of developing more
net-zero energy buildings in India for fewer emissions during the building life-cycle. For a
brighter, greener, and cleaner future, this study proposes expanding researchers’ emphasis
beyond direct energy usage and opting for hybridized clean energy sources, and improving
constructional characteristics. Therefore, by reducing the operational energy, associated
emissions will definitely be reduced and the sustainability goals can be achieved easily.
Hussain and Prakash [22] focus on finding an academic building’s Life Cycle Ecological
Footprint (LCEF), which is found to be 4426.47 gha. The study mentions that the ‘Grid-
Connected Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic’ System (GRSPV) has the potential to decrease the
total LCEF of a structure. Reddy and Jagadish [23] assess the Embodied Energy (EE) of
both general building materials and their alternatives. The authors mention that through
efficient utilization of alternative materials used in buildings, the total EE can be cut down
by 50%.
The previous study has largely found that the lack of a defined framework and calcu-
lation technique frequently results in a wide range of findings in LCEA assessments [24].
Several European standards created by Technical Committee TC350, including EN 15643-
2 [25] and EN 15,978 [26], as well as worldwide standards, including ISO 21931-1 [27] and
ISO 21929-1 [28], have been established in recent decades to standardize the use of LCA in
buildings. However, there is a lot of evidence that the findings of LCEA analyses vary a
lot [29–32].
Most studies in the literature focus solely on embodied energy calculations, with
relatively little work done on operational energy calculations and combined effect of OE
and EE on ecological footprint. The system boundaries set need to consider the life cycle of
all the building components and of the building itself in order to assess the overall total
EF and the impacts of the building throughout its entire life cycle. There have been very
few studies to evaluate the TBL sustainability performance of residential structures. The
Life Cycle Sustainability Evaluation (LCSE) of residential structures may be improved
further by identifying important stakeholders, establishing appropriate TBL indicators, and
gathering site-specific data to construct TBL inventories for sustainability assessment. So
far, the sustainability evaluation frameworks in use have lacked a comprehensive strategy
to addressing the shortcomings. As a result, a comprehensive LCSE framework is necessary
to combine environmental, social, and economic goals in order to reduce the ecological
impact and achieve sustainability.
Earlier studies on ecological footprint reduction in tropical and warm climates have
been conducted, but no proper study on ecological footprint reduction of housing develop-
ments in composite climates has been conducted. The National Building Code (NBC) of
India [33] classified India into five climatic zones, namely, hot and dry, warm and humid,
cold, temperate, and composite zones. In India, many regions experience two or three types
of climates during the course of a year, with varying degrees of intensity and duration.
Such regions are said to have a composite climate. The features of a composite environment
include hot and dry, warm and humid, and cold climates. Season to season, the features
alter. This type of climate is most common in India’s central region, as well as in the plains
of Northern India.
This paper presents a novel study of the Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle
Ecological Footprint Assessment of five buildings located in two northern states, namely,
Uttarakhand and Haryana, along with one union territory, i.e., Jammu and Kashmir, falling
under the composite climatic region of India. The comparison between the most energy
efficient buildings has been performed using low energy building materials and star-rated
household appliances (plug loads) for determining the operational energy of the buildings
in this climatic region. The building’s maintenance and recurring phases are examined, but
the demolition phase is excluded.
A novel user-friendly LCEF mobile application and a program on MATLAB is also
developed to calculate the life cycle energy and life cycle ecological footprints of the
buildings by putting the huge amount of building materials inventory data along with their
embodied energies data in digital format. The generic model and mobile App can help in
choosing the best building material responsible for reducing the associated GHG emissions
and finding the LCE of any building simultaneously. The mobile App is dynamic and
user can also add on any new materials used in any building along with their properties
and embodied energy to find the best optimized LCE and Life Cycle Ecological Footprint
Assessment of any building in any part of the country.
2. Materials and Methods

The methodology adopted in this research is split into two parts. The first part
discusses LCE, and the second part covers the LCEF of buildings.
2.1. Building’s Life-Cycle Energy (LCE)

LCE is defined as “the energy that is answerable for the entire energy contributions to
a building during its life cycle”. The manufacturing, use, and demolition phases of any
building are included in the total LCE. The Embodied Energy (EE) and Operational Energy
(OE) are calculated first in order to estimate the LCE of any building. The EE is calculated
for initial and recurring building materials [34] for the overall calculation of building LCE.
Equation (1) represents the formula for calculating LCE of a building:
LCE = EE(i) + EE(r) + OE + DE, (1)
where EE(i) = building’s initial embodied energy; EE(r) = building’s recurring embodied
energy; OE = building’s operational energy throughout its lifespan; DE = building’s
demolition energy.
2.1.1. Building’s Initial Embodied Energy (EE(i) )

EE(i) is the exemplified energy [34] that is utilized for the underlying development of
the building. It is computed by Equation (2):
EE(i) = ∑m(x) M(x) + E(c) , (2)
where M(x) = energy content of the material (x) per unit quantity; m(x) = quantity of building
material (x); E(c) = energy consumed at the site for creation of the building; EE(i) = building
initial embodied energy.
Examples of low EE(i) building materials are sand, aggregate, wood, Kota stone,
prefabricated brick panel roof, soil cement block masonry, etc. [35].
2.1.2. Building’s Recurring Embodied Energy (EE(r) )

EE(r) is the energy that is utilized for the repair and replacement of building materials
that have a lifespan less than the life span of the building [34]. It tends to be assessed by
Equation (3):
EE(r) = ∑m(x) M(x) [L(b) /L(m(x) ) − 1], (3)
where L(b) = building life span; EE(r) = building recurring embodied energy; L(m(x) ) = material
(x) life span.
Examples of EE(r) building materials involve sand, wood, aggregate, and other mate-
rials used during the repair works after some time interval in a building.
2.1.3. Building’s Operational Energy (OE)

The energy consumed in heating, ventilation, lighting, and operating equipment and
machines in the building can be termed as OE [34]. OE is communicated as:
OE = E(OA) × L(b) , (4)
where L(b) = building life span; E(OA) = yearly operating energy; OE = operating energy
throughout the building life span varying from 50 years to 100 years.
The example of building OE is the energy consumed by various electrical and elec-
tronic equipment in a building such as fans, bulbs, tube lights, air conditioners, etc.
2.1.4. Building’s Demolition Energy (DE)

The demolition energy is “the energy required for obliterating the structure and
moving the generated waste to the landfill destinations or recycling the waste in plants for
its further re-use” [34]. It may be communicated as:
DE = E(D) + E(T), (5)
where E(T) = energy consumed in transporting waste materials; E(D) = energy utilized in
the destruction of a building; DE = demolition energy.
2.2. Building’s Life-Cycle Ecological Footprint (LCEF)

The concept of EF created by Wackernagel and Rees [36] in the mid-1990s is used to
examine the usefulness of resource consumption, the natural resources distribution around
the world, and the sustainability of the system. The LCEF methodology of a building
project is presented in Figure 1.
The expression for calculating the EF(gha) according to [22] is as follows:
EF = C(x) /Y(x) × e(x) , (6)

Figure 1. LCEF of a building project [22].
where Y(x) = Yearly item productivity (kg/year); C(x) = Yearly item consumption
(kg/year); e(x) = equivalence factor. The equivalence factor for various land types is
determined as follows, taken from [37]:
Net primary productivity of specific land type(kg/ha)

e(x) = × gha/ha, (7)
Average Net primary productivity of all land types(kg/ha)
This work shows the adaptation of the EF indicator with the use of LCA to determine
the building’s total LCEF. The LCA of the building is utilized to explore and quantify the
natural results during their life, creation of materials, development stage, use, repair stage,
and destruction stage. This project is a cradle-to-grave approach.
The parameters taken into account for the LCEF of the building are related to the
consumption of materials, electricity consumption, manpower, waste disposal, etc., and
are defined as:
∑LCEF = LCEF(e & m) + LCEF(t) + LCEF(we) + LCEF(m) + LCEF(built-up) , (8)
where LCEF(built-up) represents the LCEF of built-up land utilization; LCEF(m) represents
the LCEF of manpower; LCEF(w) represents the LCEF of construction and demolition waste
disposal; LCEF(t) represents the LCEF of transportation; LCEF(we) represents the LCEF of
water utilization; and LCEF (e & m) represents the LCEF of utilized energy and materials in
the building [22].
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11949 2.2.1. LCEF of Energy Consumption and Material (LCEF (e & m) ) 7 of 25
The relation for calculating the LCEF associated with consumption of energy and
materials is derived from [22]:
LCEF
LCEF (e & m) = {LCO2 × ((1 − SOC)/Af)} × eCO2 land + {⅀Cwi/Ywi} × eforest,
(e & m) = {LCO2 × ((1 − SOC )/Af )} × eCO2 land + { Cwi /Ywi } × eforest , (9) (9)
where LCO2LisCOthe
where 2
istotal emissions
the total during
emissions thethe
during building’s life
building’s lifecycle.
cycle.ItItisisnoted
notedthat
that 30%
30% ofof the
globaltheemissions of CO2 were
global emissions of COabsorbed
2 were by oceans
absorbed by from
oceans 2002
from to 2012
2002 to [38].
2012 A
[38].
f is the
A f isabsorp-
the
tion factor of forests, which is considered to be 2.68 TCO2/gha. The sequestration by oceans
(SOC) of the anthropogenic emissions is 0.30. The wood production yield (Ywi) in India is
73 m3/ha [39]. The eCO2 land is the equivalence factor for CO2 land, ith wooden material’s
life-cycle consumption is the Cwi [40], and eforest is the equivalence factor of forest land (1.28
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11949 LCEF(e & m) = {LCO2 × ((1 − SOC)/Af)} × eCO2 land + {⅀Cwi/Ywi} × eforest, 7 (9)
of 25
where LCO2 is the total emissions during the building’s life cycle. It is noted that 30% of the
global emissions of CO2 were absorbed by oceans from 2002 to 2012 [38]. Af is the absorp-
tion absorptionfactor of factor forests, ofwhich
forests,iswhich considered is considered to be 2.68 to Tbe CO2 2.68
/gha. TCO2 The/gha. The sequestration
sequestration by oceansby
(Soceans
OC) of the (SOC LCEF ) of (ethe
anthropogenic & m)anthropogenic
= {LCOemissions 2 × ((1 − Semissions OCis)/A 0.30. f)} × The eisCO0.30. land + The
2wood {⅀C wood
wi/Ywi} production
production forest, (Ywiyield
× eyield ) in India (Ywi )isin
(9)
India is 73 m 3 /ha [39]. The e is the equivalence factor for CO land, ith wooden
73 m /ha [39]. The eCO2 land is the
3 COequivalence
2 land factor for CO2 land, ith wooden 2 material’s
where LCO2 is the
material’s
life-cycle consumption total emissions
life-cycle is the during
consumption Cwi [40],the isand building’s
the eC wi is
forest [40],the life and cycle.
equivalence eforest It isisnoted that
the equivalence
factor of forest 30% land of the
factor
(1.28of
global emissions
forest
gha/ha). land of
(1.28 CO 2 were absorbed by oceans from 2002 to 2012 [38]. Af is the absorp-
gha/ha).
tion factor of forests, which is considered to be 2.68 TCO2/gha. The sequestration by oceans
(SOC)2.2.2. 2.2.2.
of the Transportation
anthropogenic
Transportation LCEFLCEF
emissions (LCEF(LCEF is ) The wood production yield (Ywi) in India is
0.30.
(t))(t)
73 m /ha [39]. 3
The The
LCEF eCO is the equivalence factor for CO 2 land, ith wooden material’s
ofoftransportation
transportation comprises ofofthree three stages:
2 land
Sustainability 2021, 13, 11949 The LCEF comprises stages: 7 of 25
life-cycle • consumption is the C wi [40], and eforest is the equivalence factor of forest land (1.28
Stage I: The materials for the building construction and their transportation to the site
gha/ha). • Stage I: The materials for the building construction and their transportation to the
of the project;
site of the project;
• Stage II: The transportation of labor from their homes to the site of the project;
2.2.2.• Transportation
•
Stage II: TheLCEF
Stage
transportation
LCEF(LCEF
III: Construction (e & m) =(t) {L
and) CO of labor from their homes to the site of the project;
× ((1 − SOC)/A
2 demolition f)} × eremoval
waste CO2 land + {⅀C from wi/Ythe wi} ×project
eforest, site to the
• 7 of 25
Stage III: Construction and demolition waste 7 of 25 7 ofremoval 25 from the project site to the(9)
The LCEF landfill of transportation
zone. comprises of three stages:
where landfill LCO2zone. is the total emissions during the building’s life cycle. It is 7noted
ability 2021, 13, 11949 • Stage The I: The LCEF materials of transportationfor the building is calculated construction by the and following their transportation
Equation 25 that
of [22]: 30% of the
to the
global The emissions
LCEF of transportation of CO2 were absorbed is calculated by oceans by thefrom following 2002 to 2012 [38].
Equation [22]:Af is the absorp-
site of the project;
tion factor of forests, whichwiis/Yconsidered to be 2.68 TCO2/gha. The sequestration by oceans
F−(eS&OC m))/A = {Lf)}CO ×LCEF
2e×CO((1 − LCEF
+
S
(t) = LCEF
2 land {⅀C
OC )/A
{( Cmi(t) ×(e
wi f
&)}
/Y × =
= {(⅀C
m) wi Dmi•/T
e } {L
×
CO e
2CO mi c×+
land
forest
2 × + ,D
((1
{⅀C
Stage miC −/TwiSII:
c/Y
OC )/A
+×The⅀C
wiD }(9) ×fwj
)}transportation
e××forest
/T DeCO
c )wj
,×/T Ec)tr+×+{⅀C
2 land EtrM +of k⅀M
(9) ×wiD
labor k }× ×D e/T
from forest
mk /T,× their
b ×EEbus }}×× ⅄(9)
homes to the
diesel ×× (1(1 − S−ocof
site S/Aocthe
f/A ×2 land
) × project;
fe)CO eCO, 2 land, (10) (10)
(SOCwj ) of the wj
anthropogenic emissions mk isb 0.30.bus The wood diesel production yield (Ywi) in India is
• Stage III: Construction and demolition waste removal from the project site to the
where
gl emissions
the building’sLCO during
2 islifethethecycle.
total building’s
emissions
It is noted life where
during
that 73
cycle. LCEF
30% m D
the
It3/ha
whereof
is [39].
mibuilding’s
(e &noted
the
m) = {LThe
represents CO2 ×
that e((1
lifethe
30% 2−
COcycle. ofSOC
average
land isIt
the )/A the equivalence
isf)}noted × eCOthat
distance +30%
2 landcovered {⅀C factor
wi/Y
of bywifor
the CO
}a ×material
eforest 2 ,land, duringith wooden transportation,
(9) material’s
landfill zone.Dmi represents the average distance covered by a material during transportation,
CO by2global
were
oceans emissions
absorbed
from 2002 byofto CO
oceans 2012 2 were from
[38].absorbedA2002 f and life-cycle
isand to
the C2012
by
mi
C represents
absorp-
oceans
[38].consumption
represents Afromf is the the
2002
theweight istothe
absorp-
weight 2012 Cwithe
of [40],
[38].
of the Aand f is e
transportable
transportablethe is the
forestabsorp- material. equivalence Mk M factor ofthe
represents forest number land (1.28of
ed
which tion
to beis factor
2.68
considered
TofCO2 forests,
/gha. toThe where
bewhich 2.68 LisCO
T
sequestration 2 is the
considered
CO2 /gha. The total
gha/ha).
laborers, The
by LCEF miemissions
to
oceansandbe of2.68
sequestration Dtransportation
mk T
during
represents
CO2 /gha.
by the
oceansThe is building’s
the calculated
distance
sequestration life
by the
traveled cycle.
by oceansIt the
following
by ismaterial.
noted Equation
laborers. that T k represents
30% [22]:of the the number
b and Tc are the capac-
of laborers, and Dmk represents the distance traveled by the laborers. Tb and Tc are the
globalwood emissions ities of 0.30.
CO 2 were absorbed by oceans from 2002 to 2012 [38]. Af is the absorp-
⅄diesel
ogenic
s 0.30.(SOCemissions
The
) of the wood anthropogenic
isproduction
LCEF 0.30. (t) =The {(⅀Cyield emissions
mi × D(Y production
mi/T wi )c in+isof⅀C
capacities the
India bus
wj yield
×The is
Dwj
of andwood
/T
the(Yc)wi truck,
×) E
bus in +respectively.
production
trandIndia⅀M kis× Dyield
truck, mk/Tb (Y
respectively. × Ewibus represents
) in} ×India ⅄diesel
diesel ×isthe
(1 −diesel
represents Soc/Affuel ) ×the eemission
CO 2 land,
diesel factor
fuel (10) (3.17
emission
valence 73 m isfactor
3/ha
the equivalence
[39].
for The CO2 eland, tion
COfactor
factor
ith is for wooden
the COof COforests,
2.2.2.
equivalence kg
2land,
material’s which
Transportation
per ith kg
factor is
woodenof considered
diesel)
for LCEF
material’s
CO [41].
land, to(LCEF
beith
The 2.68
average) TCO2/gha.
wooden
(t) fuel The
material’s sequestration
efficiencies of E by oceans
bus and Etruck are taken as
CO2 land 2 land factor (3.17 CO2 kg per kg of diesel) [41]. The average fuel efficiencies of Ebus and Etruck
2 2
onndis life-cycle
the is
eforest Cwi the consumption
[40],
equivalence
and eforest (SOC is
is )the
factor theof equivalence
the
Cwhere
of anthropogenic
wiforest 0.238
[40], D and mi represents
and
land factor 0.222
eforest
(1.28 isof emissions
kg
theforestthe
ofand average
fuel
equivalence
land isper 0.30.
(1.28 The wood
distance
kilometer,
factor covered
of forest production
respectively land by(1.28a [42]. yield (Yduring
material wi) in India is
transportation,
are taken The LCEF
as 0.238 of transportation
0.222 kg of comprises
fuel per of three
kilometer, stages:
respectively [42].
gha/ha). 73 m /haand 3 [39].CThe mi represents eCO2 land isthe theweight equivalence factor for CO2material.
of the transportable land, ithMwooden k represents material’sthe number of
life-cyclelaborers, consumption • and Stage D is theI:represents
The
C materials
wi [40], and the e for the traveled
forest is the
distance building
equivalence by construction
the factor
laborers. of and
forest
T their
and land T transportation
(1.28
are the capac- to the
2.2.3.
2.2.3. LCEF LCEF mkofof Manpower
Manpower (LCEF(LCEF ) )
(m)(m) b c
gha/ha). site of the project;

ities (t)of) the bus and truck, respectively. ⅄diesel represents the diesel fuel emission factor (3.17
LCEF 2.2.2. (LCEF (t))
Transportation LCEF (LCEF The TheLCEF LCEFrelated related totolaborlabor is generally generally centered
centered on on foodfoodand and portability.
portability. In
Inproject;
this this seg-
segment
CO2 kg• perStage kg ofII:diesel) The transportation
[41]. The average of labor fuelfrom efficiencies their homes of Ebustoand the site
Etruckofare the taken as
nsportation
rises
ity 2021, of13,The
three
11949 LCEF
comprises
stages: of transportation
of three stages: ment generally,
comprises• generally,
Stage offood three
III: food
utilization
stages: utilization
Construction and is considered
is considered demolition to survey towaste survey7 its
of removal
25 its LCEF.
LCEF. Tofrom To7estimate
estimate the LCEF
of 25project
the the siteLCEF
(m)to [43],
(m)the
2.2.2. Transportation 0.238 and 0.222 LCEF kg (LCEF of fuel(t)per ) kilometer, respectively [42].
• construction
terials
lding for
Stage theI:building
Theand materialsconstruction
their transportationfor theand [43],only
building only
theirfood
landfillfood consumption
to transportation
the
construction consumption
zone. and during
to the during workingworking
their transportation to the hours hours is taken
is taken into into consideration.
consideration. TheThe LCEF
LCEF of
The LCEF of of
manpower
manpower transportation [22]
[22] is is comprises
estimated
estimated of
as:as: three stages:
ct; site of the project; 2.2.3. LCEFThe of Manpower LCEF of transportation (LCEF(m)) is calculated by the following Equation [22]:
•
nsportation
or from Stage
theirofhomesII:
laborThe from to • their
transportation
the site Stage of
homes the I:ofTheproject;
labor
to the materials
from
siteLCEF oftheir for homes
the the building
project; to the construction
site offi/Y the and their transportation to the
LCEF m)=={(⅀C {L The
2 LCEF
××project;
((1 LCEF
− S )/A
=related
{L )} × (m)
×e to=
((1dlabor
w
− /365
S+ {⅀Cis ×
)/A f {⅀(C
generally
d
)} /Y × e } × e ) project;
ficentered i + ⅀(C
×+ e,{⅀C on
/Yfueljfood ×× ⅄ ) × ,(1portability.
jand − Soc)/Af(9) × eIn CO2thisland, seg- (11)
olition • waste
ruction Stage
and demolition
removal
III: Construction LCEF
from
(e &(t)
waste site
theremovalof
and
CO
projectthe mi
demolition D
LCEF mi(e/T
fromto(m)
site
& OC
m)
c +
thethe ⅀C= project
waste
fdw /365
CO
wj ×
2 D CO
removal
2
wj × fdto{from
/T
land
site c) ×
OC E tr
the +
(Cfi /Y
wif ⅀M wi k CO×
thefi )project× ei + site
2 D
landforest
mk /T b (C× wi Efuelj
bus
to ××} (9)
}withe eforest
⅄diesel
j ) × ×(1 (1−− SSoc oc/A
)/A f) f×× eCO eCO 2 land,land , (11)
2
(10)
• ment generally, food utilization
Stage II: The transportation of labor from their homes to the site of the project; is considered to survey its LCEF. To estimate the LCEF (m)
landfillLCO2 zone. where d
where is the total where
•
LCO2 [43],
emissions is the
Stage III:only
duringwhere
total
where
Construction food drepresents
wD
emissions
the mi represents
building’s
wconsumption
represents during the
and demolition
lifethe labor
thecycle.
during labor day
average
building’s
Itworking
is
day
waste
countsdistance
noted for
lifehours
counts
removal
that
cycle. the
covered
30%
for building
It
isfrom
theis
ofnoted
taken the by
building
the into alife
that
project
span;
material 30%span;
consideration.
life fof represents
dduring
site to the
thef The
d represents
the frac-
transportation,
LCEF the
culated global
nsportation by
Thethe emissions
LCEF
is following
calculated of
globalCO
of transportation by2 emissions
Equation were
the absorbed
following
of [22]: tion and
of CO
is calculated
manpower fraction of Cfood
by2 were
Equationmi oceans
[22]
of intake
represents
byfood absorbed
isthe
[22]:from (i.e., the
following
estimated
intake 60%)
2002 by weight
(i.e., oceans
as: for
to60%)
Equation lunch
2012fromof forthe
[38]. and2002
Af isand
[22]:
lunch breakfast
transportable to the 2012 absorp-
breakfast of
[38]. Aof an
material. Indian M
f is the absorp-
an k adult;
Indianrepresents Y
adult; fi represents
the
Y number
represents the of
landfill zone. fi
tion factor of forests, tionwhich factor is ofconsiderediththe
forests, food
laborers, which
ith production
to and
food be DmkTyield
is production
2.68
considered represents
CO2/gha. (kg/hectare/year);
to
yield bethe
The 2.68 distance
TCO2/gha.
sequestration
(kg/hectare/year); C isby
traveled
fiThe food Cconsumption
by
oceans
sequestration theis food laborers. by category
Tb and Tjcin
oceans
consumption are the
categorythebuild-
capac-
j in
CTmk
mi c)/T
××D bE×tr E
mi /T
+bus⅀M
c +} ×⅀Ck⅄ ×diesel
wj D×mk×D /T
(1wjb/T−× cSE)ocbus
×/A E
}Thef×
tr ) +⅄ ⅀M
×LCEF
eCOing
diesel 2k×land
×(1of D, − S /T /A
transportation
mk LCEF
oc b (10)
× f )E ×bus e }
=
CO × d2 ⅄
landis ,
/365 ×
calculated
diesel × (1f −
(10)
{⅀(CS oc /Aby
/Y f) ×
the
) ×e COfollowing
e +
2
⅀(C
land , × (10)
⅄
Equation fi
) × (1 −[22]:
S )/A × e ,
(SOC) of the anthropogenic (SOC) of the emissions
anthropogenic itieslife is of(kg/person/year);
0.30.the bus
(m)
emissions
The and
woodw truck,
is C
the building life (kg/person/year); Cfuelj represents fuel consumption category j forlife
production
0.30. d
fuelj represents
respectively.
The fi
woodfi
yield ⅄
i fuel
production
(Ydiesel
wi ) consumption
represents
in fuelj
India j
yield is the (Ycategory
diesel
wi
oc
) in fuel
f
Indiaj for
CO the
emission
is
2 land buildingfactor
(11) (3.17
the
sance
the 73
where m3D
covered
average
LCEF /ha mi(t)[39].
distance
by a The
represents
= {(⅀C 73covered
material
mi ×em D
COthe32/ha during
/T
miland c[39].
averageis
+by⅀Cthe cycle
The ×CO
equivalence
atransportation,
material
wj distance D
building eCO (kg/person/year);
2 /T
wj kg per
×isEfactor
cduring
2 land )covered
life kg
the
tr of
equivalence
byfor
+ transportation,
cycle ⅀M ka ×⅄CO
diesel) Dj represents
mk2[41].
material
(kg/person/year); /T land, × The
b factor ith}category
during
Ebus average
for
×wooden CO
⅄transportation,
j represents
diesel
jfuel
2×land,
(1fuel
material’s
−S emission
efficiencies
ith
oc/Acategoryf) × eCO2jof
wooden factor. E, busYearly
material’s
fuel
land and(10)
emission EEFtruckof are
factor.thetaken
utili-
Yearly as
he life-cycle
ansportable
weight
and consumption
Cmiofrepresents
the
material. life-cycle
transportableMthe is the
k represents
weight where
consumption
C
material.ofwithe zation
[40],
the dM
0.238 w represents the labor day counts for the building life span; fd represents the frac-
and of
transportable
number and
is goods
e
representsthe of0.222
Cis per
the kg
[40], capita
of fuel
equivalence
material.
the and
number in
e
M per India
of iskilometer,
factor
the
represents is decided
equivalence
of forest
the as
respectively
number land per
factor the
(1.28
of [42].
of report
forest of
land the product
(1.28 utilization
EF of the utilization of goods per capita in India is decided as per the report of the product
k forest wi forest
k
presents gha/ha).
laborers,
ce traveled the by and
distance
the Dmk where
gha/ha).
laborers.
traveled
represents Tbby Dthe
and tion
mi
the of India
Trepresents
of
distance
claborers.
are foodthe traveledintake
Tthe
by
capac- b andNSSO (i.e.,
averageTbyc [44].
are 60%)
the distance
the for
laborers.
capac- lunch Tb and
covered and T breakfast
by a material
c are the capac-
of anduring Indian transportation,
adult; Yfi represents the
utilization of India by NSSO [44].
⅄diesel
uck, ities
respectively.
of the busthe
represents ⅄diesel
and and
truck,
diesel represents
fuel Cmiemission ith
represents
respectively. the food 2.2.3.
diesel production
factor the
⅄diesel LCEF
fuel weight
(3.17
represents
emissionofyield of the
Manpower (kg/hectare/year);
factor
the transportable
diesel(3.17(LCEF fuel (m) emission Cfi is food
) material. factor Mconsumption
k represents the
(3.17 category
number j inofthe build-
laborers, ing
and life
D
2.2.4. (kg/person/year);
represents
LCEF of the
Construction C
distance represents
traveled fuel
by the consumption
laborers. T category
and T are j for
the the
) ) buildingInlife
capac-
toofand busDemolition Waste Disposal (LCEF
mk fuelj b c
esel)
rage CO 2.2.2.
[41].
fuel Transportation
2 kgefficiencies
Theperaverage
kg of diesel) 2.2.2.
offuel ELCEF
bus Transportation
and(LCEF
efficiencies
[41]. EThetruck 2.2.4.
) E
average
are
(t) of LCEF
takenLCEF
The
bus and
fuel as
LCEF of
(LCEF E Construction
efficiencies
truck ) taken
(t)are
related and
Eas
labor Demolition
and
is Etruck are
generally Waste
taken
centered Disposal
ason food (LCEFand(we) portability.
(we) this seg-
ities of the cyclebus (kg/person/year);
and truck, respectively. ⅄ j represents ⅄ diesel represents category j
the fuel diesel emission fuel factor.
emission Yearly
factor EF(3.17 of the utili-
r,fuel
respectively
0.238per and kilometer,
0.222
[42]. kg respectively
The LCEF of transportation of fuel per
The LCEF of [42].
kilometer, ment
comprises The respectively
The
transportation wastage
generally,
wastage
of three [42].
during
food
during
comprises
stages: the
utilization development
ofdevelopment
three is considered
stages:period period toof of
survey the
the building building
its LCEF. is reported
To estimate
is reported as 45–65 the 45–65
as kg/m(m)2
LCEF
CO2 kg per zation kg of of 2diesel)
goods per [41].capita The average in Indiafuel is decided efficiencies as per ofthe Ebusreport and Eof truck the areproduct
taken as utilization
• Stage I: The •materials Stage for
I: The kg/m
the by[43], the
materials
building byonly thefood
Energy Energy and and Resources
Resources
consumption Institute
during Institute (TERI)
working (TERI)
[45].hours It[45].is It is assessed
is assessed
taken into that to12that to 14.7
consideration. 12 tomillion 14.7
Themil- tons
LCEF
ower 2.2.3.(LCEF LCEF (m)) of Manpower (LCEF(m)
0.238 and of0.222 India )of kg byofNSSO fuelconstruction
for
per[44].the
kilometer,building and construction
their
respectively transportation[42]. and their to transportation
the the
21, 13, 11949 site of the project;site of the project; lion of tons
C&D
manpower of
waste C&D is
[22] waste
accumulated
is is
estimated accumulated every
as: year every from yearthe from
construction the construction
7 ofindustry
25 industry
[46]. The [46].
life of
edrallyto•labor
centered
The is LCEF
generally
on food
related
Stage II: The•transportation and
centeredto
Stageportability.
labor on
II: is
The The
food the
generallyIn andconstruction
life
this of the
portability.
seg-
centered constructionand
on In demolition
food
this and
seg-
and (C&D)
demolition
portability. waste
(C&D)
In this is considered
waste
seg- is to
considered be aroundto be 75
around to 80 years.
75 to
2.2.3. LCEF 2.2.4. ofofManpower
LCEFtransportation
laboroffrom Construction their
(LCEF
LCEF of(m)homes
labor
(m) )= dand wfrom
toDemolition
/365 the ×their
fsite
d{⅀(C homes
offithe /YWastefi)project;
to
× ethe + ⅀(C
iDisposalsitefuelj of (LCEF×the ⅄j)project; (1 )− Soc)/Af × eCO2 land,
× (we) (11)
sidered
utilization
ment• togenerally,
survey
Stage is considered
III:itsfood LCEF.
• utilization
Construction toStage
To survey estimate
III:
and is
its 80 The years.
considered
LCEF.
the
Construction
demolition LCEF
LCEF To The LCEF
estimate
to
(we)
(m) waste
and candemolition
survey be
the
(we) calculated
can
its
removal LCEF be from
LCEF. calculated
waste
(m) To as: estimate
the removal as: thefrom
project site LCEF tothe theproject site to the
(m)
orking
mption[43],hours only
during food
is taken
working
consumption
intohours The
consideration. LCEF
isduring
taken The related
working
into The wastage tohours
consideration.
LCEF laborduring isistaken the LCEF
generally
The development
into centered on
consideration. period food The ofand theportability.
LCEF building isInreported this seg- as 45–65
landfill zone. landfill zone. 2 where d w represents the labor LCEF day counts ={⅀C (⅀W for dwithe /Y building
)forest
× is eestimate life
, span; fd12 represents the(12) frac-
estimated
of manpower as: ment kg/m
generally,LCEF
[22] is estimated as: tion of food intake (i.e., 60%) (eby food
& m)the = {LEnergy
utilization
CO2 × ((1 and − is S Resources
considered
OC)/Af)} × e Institute
CO 2 land
(we)
+ (TERI)
LCEF(we) = ( Wdwi /Ydwi ) × elandfill , (9)LCEF
to survey its
wi /YLCEF. wi[45].
} dwi
× e To It , assessed
landfill
the that to
(m) 14.7 mil-
(12)
The LCEF of transportation The
[43], onlylion LCEF foodtons of
is calculated
transportation
consumptionof C&D waste by the is
during calculated
following
is accumulated
working hours for
Equation
by thelunch following
every and
[22]:
is taken breakfast
yearinto Equation
from of an
[22]:
the construction
consideration. Indian adult;
The LCEF Y fi represents the
industry [46].
× ei +×⅀(C
Ydfiw) /365 fd{⅀(C LCEF
fuelj ⅄fij))(m)
where
×fi/Y ×× (1 L
=eofid+−CO ⅀(C
S/365is)/A
wmanpower
2oc the×fThe
fuelj e⅄CO
f×dtotal
{⅀(C )[22]
2×
jlife ith
emissions
where
land
fi(1
/Yof ,food
−
is
fi )
theS ×
Y oc eproduction
)/A + ⅀(C
during
construction
estimated
(11)
i f ×
isbus e
the COas:
fuelj2 the
× yield
⅄, building’s
)
and
bio-productive
land j × (1(kg/hectare/year);
(11)−
demolitionS oc )/Alife
land f ×cycle.
e
(C&D)
area
CO It
2 land C
peris
,waste is
fi notedfood
unit (11) is consumption
that
considered 30%
waste; W , is the of the
to category
be around
quantity
j in75the build-
oftowaste
Cmi ×LCEF Dmi/T(t)c += ⅀C {(⅀C ×D
wj mi × wj D/T mi/T c) × c +E⅀C tr + wj ⅀M ×D k ×
ing wj/T D c) /T
mk × E
dwi
b tr × +
E ⅀M } ×k⅄ × D mk×
diesel /T (1 b × − ES oc/A
bus } × f)⅄ × e
dieselCO× (1
2 land ,
− S oc/A(10) f) × eCO2 landdwi (10)
global emissions80ofyears. CO (m 23
);life
were
The (kg/person/year);
absorbed
LCEF
elandfill (0.43
(we) can bygha/ha
oceans
be Cfuelj
calculated from represents
pasture-land) 2002
as: to 2012 fuel
is the consumption Af is the category
[38].equivalence factor jof
absorp- forthe thetype building of bio- life
LCEF cycle (m) =(kg/person/year);
dfrac-
w/365 × fd{⅀(Cfi/Y ⅄ fij )represents
× eT i + ⅀(Cfuelj category ⅄j)sequestration
×transportation,
×the (1
j −frac-
fuel Socemission
)/Af ×transportation,
eCOoceans
2 land,
factor. Yearly (11) EF of the utili-
nts
thewhere
for
labor theday
where dbuilding
Drepresents
w micounts
represents
tion life
for
where
factorspan;
thethe thelabor
building
ofDfdmi represents
average day
represents
forests, life
counts span;
distance
which thethe for
is f the
averagerepresents
dcovered
considered building distance
by to
productive land for the waste to be disposed of (gha/ha) [40]. the
a life
be frac-
materialspan;
2.68covered f
during
CO2 represents
d /gha.by a Thematerial during by
e.,
and tion
60%) breakfast
and offor
Cfood
milunch of
intake
representsan
(Sand
OC Indian
(i.e.,
)andbreakfast
of the C60%)
the adult;
weight for
ofYof
represents
mianthropogenic an
filunch zation
Indian
represents
the theand of
adult;
transportable goods
breakfast
weight
emissionsthe per
Yoffi represents
theof0.30.
material.
is capita
an LCEF
Indian
transportable
The M inwood
the (we) = (⅀W
India
adult;
k represents isYfidecided
material.
production dwi/Ydwias
represents
theMnumber )represents
k yield
× per
ethe
landfill
of
(Y the , in
wi) reporttheIndia numberofisthe of product utilization (12)
yield
ear); ith (kg/hectare/year);
Cfood
fi is food production
consumption where
yield
C fi is[39].
d w represents
(kg/hectare/year);
foodcategory consumption of
j in India
the the by labor NSSO day counts
[44]. for the building life span; f d represents the frac-
laborers, and 73Dmk mlaborers,
3represents
/ha and the
The Dedistance
mkCO represents
2 land C
isbuild-
category
the fi isthe
traveled food j consumption
distance
equivalenceby inthethelaborers.
build-
traveled
factor for category
Tby b andCO the2Tland, cj are
in the
laborers. ithbuild-
the capac-
Tb and Tcmaterial’s
wooden are the capac-
tion of food intake (i.e., 60%) for lunch and breakfast of an Indian adult; Y fi represents the
ear);
nts ing
fuel Cfuelj
life
ities of (kg/person/year);
consumption
represents
the bus and fuel
category
life-cycleities
truck, of C
consumptionthe j for represents
respectively.
consumption
fuelj bus the and building
category
truck,
is ⅄fuel
the life
jrepresents
consumption
for
Crespectively.
diesel wi [40], the and building ⅄diesel
ethe
forest category
diesel life
is represents
the fuel j for
equivalenceemission the diesel building
factor
factor fuel oflife
(3.17 emission
forest land factor
(1.28(3.17
ith ⅄food production yield j(kg/hectare/year); Cfi isYearly food consumption category(LCEF j in the(we) build-
r); ⅄
ategory cyclerepresents
jCO j2 (kg/person/year);
fuel
kg per emission
category
kg ofCO
gha/ha). factor.2j kg
diesel) fuel j represents
Yearly
per emission
[41]. kg The of2.2.4.
EF of
category
factor.
average
diesel) the LCEFutili-
Yearly
[41].
fuel ofThe
fuel Construction
EF
emission
efficiencies of the utili-
average factor.
offuel and Demolition
Ebusefficiencies
and Etruck EF of ofWaste
are the busutili-
Etaken and Disposal
asEtruck are taken )as
decided
capita zation inas India
of pergoodsthe
is decided
report
per ing
capita life (kg/person/year); C fuelj represents fuel consumption category j for the building life
0.238 and 0.222 kg of of
0.238 as
fuelandthe
per inper product
the
India
0.222 report
kilometer,
kg is of utilization
decidedof
fuel
The the
respectively
per as
product
wastage per the
kilometer, utilization
[42].
duringreport respectively
theof the developmentproduct
[42]. utilization period of the building is reported as 45–65
2.2.2.[44]. cycle (kg/person/year);
Transportation LCEF ⅄j represents category j fuel emission factor. Yearly EF of the utili-
4]. of India by NSSO kg/m2(LCEF by the(t)Energy ) and Resources Institute (TERI) [45]. It is assessed that 12 to 14.7 mil-
2.2.3. LCEF of Manpower 2.2.3.zation LCEF of goods
(LCEF ) per tons capita in India is decided as per the report of the product utilization
The LCEF ofoftransportation
Manpower
(m)lion (LCEF
ofcomprises
C&D (m)) waste is accumulated every year from the construction industry [46].
of three stages:
73 m /ha [39]. The eCO2 land is the equivalence factor for CO2 land, ith wooden material’s
global emissions
life-cycle of consumption
CO2 were absorbed is the Cby oceans from 2002 to 2012 [38]. Af is the absorp-
wi [40], and eforest is the equivalence factor of forest land (1.28
tion factorgha/ha).
of forests, which is considered to be 2.68 TCO2/gha. The sequestration by oceans
(SOC) of the anthropogenic emissions is 0.30. The wood production yield (Ywi) in India is
73 m3/ha [39].2.2.2.The eCO2 land is the
Transportation LCEFequivalence
(LCEF(t))factor for CO2 land, ith wooden material’s
Sustainability 2021, 13,
life-cycle 11949
consumption is the Cwi [40], and eforest is the equivalence factor of forest land (1.28 8 of 25
The LCEF of transportation comprises of three stages:
gha/ha).
• Stage I: The materials for the building construction and their transportation to the
2.2.2. Transportation site of LCEFthe project;
(LCEF(t))
• Stage II: The 2.2.5.transportation
LCEF of Consumption of labor from of Watertheir (LCEF
homes(w) to) the site of the project;
The LCEF of transportation comprises of three stages:
• Stage III: Construction In India, water and demolition
consumption waste dataremoval
is not well from the project A
documented. site to the
study [47] shows that
• Stage I: The materials
landfill water
zone. fordemand
the building for theconstruction
production of and their transportation
material and the construction to the is about 27 kl/m2 . The
site of the project; LCEF(w) can be calculated by using the following Equation (13):
The LCEF of transportation is calculated by the following Equation [22]:
• Stage II: The transportation of labor from their homes to the site of the project;
LCEF(t)•= {(⅀C mi × III:
Stage Dmi/T c + ⅀Cwj × Dwj
Construction and × Etr + ⅀M
/Tc) demolition k ×
LCEF D(w)
waste mk/T ×wE×
=removal
bC bus}E×w ⅄diesel
fromI × the× (1−
{(1 − Soc
oc/A
project )/A f) f×} e×
site the2, land , (10)
toe2 CO
CO land (13)
landfill zone.
where Dmi represents where Cwthe average the
represents distance covered by a of
total consumption material
water for during transportation,
the lifespan of a building (m3 ); Ew
The LCEF of transportation
and Cmi represents the is calculated
weight of the by the following
transportable Equation
material. M [22]:
k represents the number of
represents the energy consumption rate/liter to extract water up to the requisite height
CEF(t) = {(⅀Cmi × Dmi/Tc + ⅀C laborers, and D
wj × Dwj/Tc) from × mkEtrrepresents
⅀M
+the the distance
k × Dmk/Tb × E
underground traveled
bus} × ⅄diesel
level; by− the
× (1 laborers.
Socthe
/A f)ith
× efuel Tb(i.e.,
and Tc are
, electricity (10)the andcapac-
i represents CO2 land diesel) emission
ities of the busfactor and truck, respectively.
that is used to extract water. ⅄ diesel represents the diesel fuel emission factor (3.17
where DmiCO represents the average distance covered by a material during transportation,
2 kg per kg of diesel) [41]. The average fuel efficiencies of Ebus and Etruck are taken as
and Cmi represents
0.238 and 0.222 the weightkg of
2.2.6. of theof
fuel
LCEF transportable
per kilometer,
Built-Up Land material.
respectively Mk[42].
(LCEF(built-up) represents
) the number of
laborers, and Dmk represents the distance traveled by the laborers. Tb and Tc are the capac-
Built-up lands are associated with different classifications such as cropland, forestland,
ities of the2.2.3.
bus and LCEF truck, respectively.
ofpasture-land,
Manpower ⅄diesel(m)represents
(LCEF ) and seathe diesel fuel emission factor (3.17
CO2 land, productive land. The LCEF(built-up) can be evaluated by:
CO2 kg per kg of diesel) [41]. The average fuel efficiencies of Ebus and Etruck are taken as
The LCEF related to labor is generally centered on food and portability. In this seg-
0.238 and 0.222 kg of fuel per kilometer, respectively [42].
ment generally, food utilization is considered LCEF survey=itsALCEF.
to(built-up) b × ebuilt-up
To estimate land , the LCEF(m) (14)
[43], only food consumption during working hours is taken into consideration. The LCEF
2.2.3. LCEF of Manpower (LCEFb(m)=) built-up land in total (ha); ebuilt-up land represents built-up land equivalence
of manpower where [22] is A estimated as:
The LCEF related to labor(2.52 factor gha/ha) centered
is generally [40]. on food and portability. In this seg-
LCEF (m) = dw/365 × fd{⅀(Cfi/Yfi) × ei + ⅀(Cfuelj × ⅄j) × (1 − Soc)/Af × eCO2 land, (11)
ment generally, food utilization is considered to survey its LCEF. To estimate the LCEF(m)
2.2.7. Average Annual EF of Residential Building
[43], only food consumption during working hours is taken into consideration. The LCEF
of manpower where [22]dwisrepresents
estimated The the
as:lifelabor day counts
expectancy of afor the building
building life span;
is considered asfhundred
d represents the The
years. frac-normal yearly
tion of food intake (i.e., 60%) for lunch and
EF of a building is determined by the given formula: breakfast of an Indian adult; Y fi represents the
LCEF = d /365 × f {⅀(C /Y ) × e + ⅀(C
ith food production yield (kg/hectare/year); Cfi is food consumption category(11)
(m) w d fi fi i fuelj × ⅄ j) × (1 − S oc )/A f × e CO 2 land , j in the build-
ing life (kg/person/year); Cfuelj represents EF fuel consumptionTotal LCEF of a Building
category j for the
avg =life span; fd represents the frac- , building life (15)
where dw cyclerepresents the labor day⅄counts
(kg/person/year); for the building
j represents category j fuel emission Buildingfactor. Life Span Yearly EF of the utili-
tion of food intake
zation of (i.e.,
goods 60%)perfor lunch
capita inandIndia breakfast
is decided of an as Indian
per theadult;
reportYfiofrepresents
the product theutilization
ith food production The normal yearly ef area of the structure is:
of India byyield NSSO (kg/hectare/year);
[44]. Cfi is food consumption category j in the build-
avg/floor
ing life (kg/person/year); Cfuelj represents fuel consumption category j for the building life
LCEF of a Building
2.2.4. LCEF of⅄Construction
cycle (kg/person/year); j represents EFcategory
and Demolition
avg/floor j fuel
area = emissionWaste factor.
Disposal Yearly
(LCEF EF(we)of) the utili- , (16)
zation of goods per capita in India is decided as per the report of the product ( Building Life Span × Floor Area of a Building)
utilization
The wastage during the development period of the building is reported as 45–65
of India by NSSO [44]. The normal yearlyInstitute
EF per person
kg/m2 by the Energy and Resources (TERI) (EF [45]. ) of a building
It is assessed
avg/person that 12 tois14.7 as follows:
mil-
lion tons of C&D waste is accumulated every year from the construction industry [46].
2.2.4. LCEF of Construction and Demolition Waste Disposal (LCEF (we)) of a Building
The life of the construction EFavg/personand demolition
= (C&D) wasteLCEF is considered to be around 75 to , (17)
The wastage
80 years.during The LCEF the(we)development
can be calculated period as:of the
(Building Life Span ×is Number
building reportedofasPersons 45–65 in a Building)
kg/m2 by the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) [45]. It is assessed that 12 to 14.7 mil-
lion tons of C&D waste3.isCase Studies LCEF
accumulated every(we) = (⅀W
year from dwi/Ydwi) × elandfill,
the construction industry [46]. (12)
The life of the construction and India demolition
is divided (C&D)
into fivewaste is considered
climate zones [33], to beand around 75 to types range from ex-
the climate
80 years. The LCEF(we) can tremebe calculated
summers as: to extreme winters. The scope of this study is limited to residential
buildings of composite climatic regions in which the minimum winter temperature (Dec.–
LCEF(we) = (⅀Wdwi/Ydwi) × elandfill, (12)
Jan.) reaches 1.0 ◦ C with maximum temperatures (May–June) touching 45 ◦ C. The EE,
LCE, and LCEF have been calculated. The places considered in this case study have been
marked in Figure 2. These include (i) Roorkee (R1 ), (ii) Kurukshetra (K1 ), (iii) Jammu (J1 ),
(iv) Jammu (J2 ), and (v) Ambala (A1 ). The detailed information of all the considered cases
is presented in Table 1.
Figure 2. Indian map with marked case study locations.
Table 1. Detailed information of the cases considered in this study.
Roorkee Kurukshetra Jammu Jammu Ambala

Parameter
(R1 ) (K1 ) (J1 ) (J2 ) (A1 )
Age of Building (in yrs.) 30 36 32 30 38
Building Occupants (nos.) 4 5 10 5 6
Area (m2 ) 165 160 157 163 166
Volume (m3 ) 495 478 470 509 518
Height Regime Single storied Single storied Single storied Single storied Single storied
Rooms (nos.) 4 3 3 4 4
Room 1 3.00 m × 3.05 m 3.53 m × 3.96 m 3.38 m × 3.38 m 4.26 m × 3.65 m 3.47 m × 4.63 m
Room 2 4.75 m × 3.35 m 3.77 m × 3.048 m 3.62 m × 4.29 m 4.26 m × 3.65 m 3.62 m × 5.05 m
Details
(size) Room 3 4.20 m × 3.23 m 3.77 m × 4.26 m 3.62 m × 2.46 m 3.93 m × 3.65 m 3.53 m ×3.81 m
Room 4 5.35 m × 4.00 m - - 4.87 m × 5.88 m 4.08 m × 4.57 m
Combined Combined
Lat./Bath (nos.) Lat:2, Bath:2 Lat:1, Bath:1 Lat:1, Bath:1
Lat-Bath:2 Lat-Bath:2
Details Lat. 2.10 m × 1.30 m 1.60 m × 1.46 m 2.40 m × 1.82 m
2.40 m × 1.79 m 1.82 m × 2.74 m
(size) Bath. 2.10 m × 1.30 m 1.05 m × 0.95 m 2.74 m × 2.40 m
Kitchen Size 2.40 m × 4.50 m 3.13 m × 3.35 m 2.40 m × 2.34 m 3.35 m × 3.35 m 3.65 m × 2.74 m
Energy Consumption
18.05 7.19 7.08 8.48 12.85
(kwh/day)
Table 1. Cont.
Roorkee Kurukshetra Jammu Jammu Ambala

Parameter
(R1 ) (K1 ) (J1 ) (J2 ) (A1 )
Tube- lights 10 - 2 - 5
CFL/LED 12 10 5 14 6
Details
Fan 7 5 3 5 6
(nos.)
AC 2 1 1 1 2
Other
8 5 5 7 6
Appliances
Maintenance Time (in yrs.) 15 15 15 15 15
Building Life Span (in yrs.) 100 100 100 100 100
Load-Bearing Load-Bearing Load-Bearing Load-Bearing Load-Bearing
Structure Typology
Structure Structure Structure Structure Structure
All the selected buildings have an approximately similar building occupancy of five
occupants, except the Jammu (J1 ) case. Additionally, all the buildings lie in the same age
group of 30–40 years, which means the material used in construction is primarily Burnt
Clay Brick (BCB), as all the other materials did not exist at the time of construction. All
selected houses are single-storied load-bearing structures. The area of the buildings is
around 160 sqm. with a deviation of 3 percent on both upper and lower sides. Room sizes
vary in all the cases, and the detailed size and count of rooms and lat./bath are presented
in Table 1. All the houses contain a single family, and there is only one kitchen in each
house, although the size of kitchen varies, and the related information is also mentioned in
the table below.
In this study, the life span of the residential buildings is considered to be 100 years.
For the computation of embodied energy, the impact of transportation and separation to
move building materials from one place to another is not considered. This study does
not include the cost of shipping and handling. The transportation’s life cycle ecological
footprint is based on prior studies and data available on the Internet. The possible impact of
the different building products and fuels used on embodied energy is also not considered.
For the computation of operational energy, this study is centered on the buildings as they
are. In this manner, the conceivable commitment from the metropolitan scale is not mulled
over. It is assumed that the residential buildings taken here are partly occupied during the
daytime from 9 am to 5 pm and are completely occupied during nights, weekends, and
other public holidays for energy calculations. The yearly operational energy is viewed
as steady all through the life expectancy of the building. Because of changes in climatic
conditions and tenants’ conduct, the building’s operational energy may vary in the future;
however, this is not contemplated in the investigation. For calculating the ecological
footprint, some data, which were not available for the studied buildings, are taken from
the previous studies [35,48].
There are various plumbing and sanitary fittings and fixtures installed in the kitchen,
bathroom, or toilets of the houses. Due to the non-availability of data of the type of sanitary
fixtures and fittings used in the houses, it is, therefore, omitted for the interest of the study.
Due to consideration of building aging, it is important to include a maintenance period.
The maintenance of any construction is dependent on the condition of the structure at the
moment, and it varies from one structure to another. However, to make predictions easier,
we used a 15-year maintenance/replacement interval for the structure. The structure’s
maintenance is highly reliant on the quality of material used. Plastering might require
4–5 years to supplant while flooring might take 10–15 years to supplant. It completely
relies upon the part of the structure as well as the materials. The embodied energy of the
building materials used in the construction of the structure is calculated for the overall
LCE of the house. The embodied energy embedded in the appliances used in the house is
not included in this study.
4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Alternative Building Materials
The determination of materials and advances for the building development ought
to the benefit the environment. The construction sector of India accounts for about 22%
of the emissions of CO2 in the atmosphere [49]. In the Indian construction industry, steel,
bricks, and cement are the biggest and mass utilized materials. The use of conventional
building materials should be minimized. The usage of a conventional brick, steel, and
cement should be reduced by using alternative materials as identified, and the energy
preservation measures must be adopted.
4.1.1. Basic Building Materials

The estimations of energy are utilized by the materials’ producers in India (Appendix C).
These can be used for the calculations of energy. For decreasing the EE of buildings, sub-
stitute building technologies can be used. These are: filler slab roofs, prefabricated roofing
systems, Stabilized Mud Blocks (SMB), Lime-Pozzolana (LP) cements, Clay Fly-ash Brick
(CFB), Reinforced Concrete (RC) slab using PPC, etc.
Table 2 presents the embedded energy in basic building materials. The LP cement
can be used as an option to the conventional cement particularly for applications such as
plastering, masonry mortar, etc. Steel and aluminum are both high-energy metals, so they
can be avoided as building materials and replaced in PVC or UPVC and wood substitutes.
Table 2. Common building materials with their embedded energy.
Materials Cement Lime LP Steel Aluminum Glass

Thermal energy (MJ/kg) 5.85 5.63 2.33 42.0 236.8 25.8
4.1.2. Materials Used in Masonry Walls and Energy in Masonry

The masonry walls are important energy-expending parts of a building. Various types
of materials are being utilized in masonry wall construction. The building block types
which can be used are analyzed in Table 3. The stone block has the least amount of energy
when compared with other masonry materials and is followed by Soil-cement block.
Table 3. Masonry materials with their embedded energy.
Burnt Clay Brick Stone Concrete Block Soil-Cement Steam-Cured

Material
(BCB) Block (Hollow) Block Block
Size (mm) 230 × 105 × 70 180 × 180 × 180 400 × 200 × 200 230 × 190 × 100 230 × 190 × 100
Energy in one 12.30 2.52 6.65
4.45 0
brick/block (MJ) (7% cement) (6% cement) (10% lime)
Energy/brick
4.45 0 1.32 1.00 2.60
equivalent (MJ)
Masonry is the congregation of different types of masonry units. It includes the energy
substance of brickwork units just as mortar, which shows the energy content for it. Table 4
shows different masonry types and the energy embedded in them.
Table 4. Different masonry types and their embedded energy.
Type of Burnt Clay Steam Cured Soil Cement

Hollow Concrete Block
Masonry Brick Mud Block Block
Energy/m3 of 818 (7% cement 972 (10% 1397 (10% lime 644 (6% cement 811 (8% cement
2141
Masonry (MJ) blocks) cement blocks) blocks) blocks) blocks)
Equivalent of
brick masonry 38.3 43.4 100 63.2 30.2 36.5
energy (%)
4.1.3. Energy in Mortars

Mortar is made up of materials having cement-like properties by mixing sand and
lime. The different types of mortars used are cement-soil mortar, cement mortar, LP mortar,
and cement-pozzolana mortar. The energy content/m3 of these mortars is studied. It
shows that the LP mortars have the least energy esteem when contrasted among different
mortars. In addition, if pozzolana replaces 20% cement, it can lead to a drop of about 25%
in the energy of the cement mortar [23].
4.1.4. Energy in Flooring and Roofing

The different typologies of roofs and floor systems can be summarized as follows:
1. The RC section rooftop or floor expends the most noteworthy measure of energy
while the ferroconcrete tile rooftop devours the least energy;
2. The 20% energy reduction in the RC slab is due to the use of SMB fillers;
3. The Mangalore tile roof is the lowest energy-expending roofing material when com-
pared with the conventional material frameworks. Its energy content is 30% of the
RC sections;
4. The RC ribbed chunk rooftop frameworks devour around 66% of energy in the RC
section rooftop/floor. This is the other suitable method of decreasing the energy of
the RC solid piece.
Various substitutes are accessible for the development of the floor/rooftop of a build-
ing. These choices are being utilized for the development of Indian residential buildings.
The roofing and flooring energy as per materials used are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Roofing and flooring energy.
BCB
Type of SMB Filler Composite RC Ribbed Mangalore Ferro-
RC Slab Masonry
Roof/Floor Slab Brick Panel Slab Tile Concrete
Vault
Energy/m2 of
732 589 565 558 487 237 160
plan area (MJ)
Equivalent of RC
100 81.8 79.8 77.7 68.3 32.1 22.6
solid slab (%)
4.1.5. LCE and LCEF Reduction Using Solar Photovoltaics

There is different research [50–56] concerning the Life Cycle Analysis of various kinds
of Solar Photovoltaic (SPV) modules that decrease ecological impact. In India, generally,
monocrystalline SPV modules are utilized as housetop SPV frameworks since their pro-
ficiency is high when contrasted with different kinds of modules [51,57,58]. It has been
assessed that the normal lifecycle ecological footprint per m2 of the solar photovoltaic
framework is 0.0694 gha/m2 . If the network power utilization is replaced by 100%, 85%,
60%, and 35% through the ‘Grid-Connected Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic’ (GRSPV) frame-
work, it can decrease up to 60%, 45%, 30%, and 12% of the all-out LCEF of the buildings
individually [14]. Agarwal et al. [59] found that during the lockdown in COVID-19 pan-
demic situation, the operational energy demand was increased in residential buildings.
Kapoor et al. [60] stated that the increase in operational energy demand is obvious due
to the productivity, health, and comfort perspectives in buildings. However, it must be
optimized to enhance the sustainable use of available energy without much wastage. Power
utilization during the operational period of the building can be decreased to bring down
its life cycle energy to make it economically feasible. To meet the need for hot water in
residential structures, the most basic and inexpensive solar water heater is a flat plate solar
collector (FPSC), which absorbs solar radiation to enhance the thermal energy of fluid. In
the near future, this can be an appropriate technology to reduce buildings’ operational
energy [61]. Phase changing materials are also one of the rapidly growing building ma-
terials to reduce electricity load in buildings while maintaining thermal comfort in the
buildings [62,63]. Building-Incorporated Photovoltaic (BIPV) boards generally decrease
the LCE utilization of the building. Even though the building’s embodied energy accounts
for just 25–49% of the building’s LCE, the chance for its reduction through low embodied
energy materials needs to be thought of.
4.2. Building Life-Cycle Energy (LCE)

For determining the total LCE, both the initial and recurring embodied energy is
worked out separately using the Equations (2) and (3), respectively, and then summed
up to find out the total embodied energy. The electricity bills paid by the residents for
their residential buildings are collected by visiting the sites to calculate the total electricity
consumption. Figure 3 represents the total EE of the five studied houses.
Figure 3. Comparison of the total embodied energies of the five studied houses.
Approximately, the areas of all the considered residential building cases are equal
(155–165 sqm). It was seen that the residential house in Jammu (J2 ) has the maximum
amount of EE, while the residential house in Jammu (J1 ) has the minimum amount of
EE among the five cases. For the OE of the house, Roorkee (R1 ) has the maximum OE,
and the OE of Jammu (J1 ) is the minimum among the five cases. These results are shown
in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Comparison of the operational energy for the five studied houses.
Considering the LCE analysis of these houses, it can be seen that the Roorkee house
has the highest LCE but less EE, and Jammu (J2 ) has the highest EE but less LCE when
compared to the Roorkee (R1 ) case as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. Comparison of the total LCE of the five studied residential buildings.
From the studied houses, it is also observed that the EE generally takes 25–49% of
the total life cycle energy depending on the materials used, and the OE may fluctuate
from 50–75% (based on the appliances/equipment used) of the total LCE. The operational
energy split for the studied houses uncovers that energy for heating, ventilation, and
cooling (52–62%) is majorly responsible for the operating energy followed by artificial
lighting and the use of appliances. The average share of OE and EE in the LCE of buildings
is presented in Figure 6.
4.3. Ecological Footprint of the Building Life Cycle (LCEF)

For determining the total LCEF of Buildings, all factors, i.e., LCEF(m) , LCEF (built-up land) ,
LCEF(w) , LCEF(we) , and LCEF(e & m) , are calculated separately. From the studied houses,
the total LCEF of buildings is calculated in the range of 242–401 gha, which is shown in
Figure 7, and the average annual EF per person of the five buildings studied is shown in
Figure 8.
Figure 6. Detailed distribution of Life Cycle Energy of the Ambala (A1 ) Case.
Figure 7. Total LCEF of the five studied houses.
Figure 8. Average annual EF/person of the five studied buildings.

The LCEF of the utilization of energy and materials is determined by the inventory
of the construction materials, OE, and demolition energy (DE) of the building during its
life cycle. It is highest for Roorkee (R1 ) and lowest for Kurukshetra (K1 ). This is majorly
due to the LCEF(t) calculation, but construction site location also plays a major role. The
transportation of workers, materials, and the construction and demolition waste in the
life cycle of the building depends on the site location. The LCEF of the manpower is
calculated through the food consumed in the working hours by the laborers. The monthly
consumption of goods per person in urban areas of India is estimated through the National
Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) report [44]. The construction and demolition waste
in the whole building life is evaluated by the use of real data of the type of buildings and
the built-up area. For the estimation of the LCEF(w) , the CO2 absorption land is taken into
consideration. The building construction phase requires a huge amount of water. Water
consumption is worked out by means of building per floor area basis data [47]. Water
consumed in the use phase, demolition, and maintenance of the building is not considered
due to the lack of available data. It is seen that out of all the footprint types, CO2 absorption
by land has the supreme fraction, which is 99% of the total land impact.
4.4. Generic Model for Life Cycle Energy

A generic model for the life cycle energy has been developed in MATLAB and is
explained with the example of the Roorkee building case R1 . The plan of the Roorkee
building is presented in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Plan of a residential building in Roorkee—Case (R1 ).

The code written is applicable to any building located in any city in India and only the
input parameters of the “data file” are to be replaced by the data file of the building whose
life cycle energy we are intending to calculate. In the present case, R1 , the data file denotes
the data prepared by the authors manually for the life cycle energy calculation, where “m”
stands for the lifespan of the building and “n” stands for the operational energy of the
building in a year. The eei (i,j) stands for the initial embodied energy in which e1 (i,j) is the
data of the quantity of building materials and e2 (i,j) is the data of the energy content of the
materials. The data is to be entered to calculate the eei (i,j). Moreover, eer (i.j) is the recurring
embodied energy in which eei(i,j) stands for the initial embodied energy, and e3 (i,j) stands
for the data of the life span of the building materials used. OE is the operational energy in
which “n” stands for the operational energy of the house in a year and “m” stands for the
life span of the building taken. LCE (i,j) is the total life cycle energy, which is the sum of all
the energies calculated. In the same way, the life cycle energy of other residential buildings
can be calculated by entering the data of that particular building whose LCE we want to
calculate. The comparison of the calculations performed manually (analytically) and by the
use of the generic model is shown in Figure 10. The results from the analytical calculations
show a much smaller error percentage. This validated our study for the calculation of
the LCE of the residential buildings using the MATLAB program. The mobile application
developed is presented in Appendix A.
Figure 10. Comparison of LCE calculations for validation (Unit: MJ).

The MATLAB explanations (Appendix B) are provided to help the multidisciplinary
audiences to easily follow up this work or replicate this study in their countries and
enhance the knowledge at the global level. The source code is not included in this article
due to privacy concerns, and the mobile application uses a broad database that is based on
deep literature review, extreme research, and rigorous calculations of real-time materials.
However, when the authors complete their study totally, after receiving permission from a
competent authority, all the data will be shared.
The mobile app section is included in this article as an Appendix to inform the readers
about it so in the future they can download it from the appropriate platforms and use it
widely. The general public needs some easy-to-use calculation tool to find out the impacts
of different building materials in real-time. This mobile application related to the study will
help in enhancing the subject knowledge in an interesting manner in the general public,
who are not subject experts. While considering the real-time application of the developed
model, users can easily compare the impact of the building materials in terms of energy
and ecological impact on the Earth. Users with zero or little knowledge can also use the
developed mobile app to find out the impacts of their selected building material (purchased
for constructing their homes) on nature. Sustainability goals can only be achieved in real-
time when simple mobile apps (such as the developed one) help non-expert users to
contribute to the same direction. This noble effort (model and mobile application) can also
enlighten the knowledge of the subject in residents and all in a state-of-the-art manner,
i.e., a mobile application. Residents can practically download the mobile app based on the
model to find out the energy and ecological impacts of their selected building materials.
Furthermore, the app is designed to update the energy data as users can also add material
and energy after downloading the app on mobile.
Finally, some of the materials and technologies recommended to reduce the ecological
footprint of buildings include the following: strategic use of continuous insulation through-
out the envelope, installation of energy efficient lighting fixtures, use of smart appliances,
and the utilization of renewable energy to reduce the OE-associated ecological footprint
in the building. Concrete can be manufactured partly from secondary raw resources such
as municipal solid wastes, used plastic, and electrical equipment to decrease EE and thus
reduce the associated ecological footprint. Furthermore, bio-composite materials and resins
made from agricultural waste and feedstock, as well as the stems of tough plants such
as flax and jute, can be used to replace concrete. In addition, new types of cement are
being developed based on low carbon binders to replace existing varieties such as Portland
cement. New concrete casting techniques, 3D printing replacing traditional materials, and
the conversion of excavation waste into building materials are all expected to transform
the EE-associated ecological footprint scenario during the construction of future buildings.
5. Conclusions
This manuscript is based on the study of five residential buildings in the composite
climate of India. The ecological impact of residential buildings during their lifespan is
evaluated in this case study. The alternative building materials have been studied, which
shows that the utilization of low-energy building materials brings about a significant
decrease in the EF and the LCE of the buildings. The following conclusions emerge from
this study:
• Cement blocks mixed with soil are the most energy-efficient material for walling,
which expends only a little amount of energy of consumed mud block. Concrete
blocks and steam-cured bricks additionally expends less when contrasted with the
burnt clay brick;
• LP mortars have the most reduced energy content in comparison with the different
mortars such as cement mortar, concrete pozzolana mortar, etc.;
• The SCB masonry is the most energy productive at around 33% of the energy of the
BCB masonry;
• The utilization of energy-productive alternative building advancements can bring
about a decrease in the EE of the buildings. The embodied energy can be reduced to
62% when we use SMB fillers. It is then compared with the burnt clay brick masonry,
which shows a 45% decrease in the embodied energy;
• Other than the solar PV frameworks, the buildings may need to embrace extra green
buildings advancements such as sun-powered cooling/warming frameworks, lime-
calcined clay concrete for altogether decreasing the CO2 ingestion land, which brings
about the decrease in the LCEF of the buildings;
• The study shows the contribution of operational and embodied energy in total LCE. A
significant contribution of embodied energy in total LCE is noted due to the type of
building materials used during construction and maintenance;
• The alternative building materials and technologies were to be developed and re-
searched more as it can potentially affect the total LCE;
• The results indicate that the LCE can be reduced substantially by using low-energy
materials and using low-energy-star-rated appliances and lighting fixtures.
• The Life-Cycle Energy Assessment (LCEA) and Life-Cycle Ecological Footprint (LCEF)
are two management methods used to assess energy, ecological impact, as well as
environmental issues. In the construction industry, the value of LCEA and LCEF as a
decision-making tool are growing continuously every day. It is difficult to measure and
explain the relative weighting of diverse ecological consequences caused by variations
in Life-Cycle Energy (LCE). The proposed model will help stakeholders to identify the
LCEF via calculating the LCE. Thus, users can reduce the coming ecological burden
due to the building materials. Users can also compare different materials and their
impact simultaneously and can decide to choose alternative low-energy material that
suits them, as well as nature. By the above-mentioned mechanism, this proposed
model can help in reducing the ecological burden of building materials and leads
towards sustainable development.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.K. and P.S.; methodology, A.K., C.S.M. and R.C.; soft-
ware, N.R.K., C.S.M. and K.J.; validation, K.S.K., C.S.M. and N.R.K.; formal analysis, A.K.; investiga-
tion, P.S.; resources, A.K.; data curation, P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K., P.S., N.R.K.,
C.S.M. and R.C.; writing—review and editing, A.K., N.R.K., C.S.M. and R.C.; visualization, N.R.K.,
C.S.M. and R.C.; supervision A.K., C.S.M. and R.C.; project administration, A.K., C.S.M. and R.C. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The study presented forms a part of the research carried out at CSIR—Central
Building Research Institute and is published with the permission of the Director. The authors
acknowledge the help extended by Simran Taneja and Garima Bhanot, Project Associates in preparing
the figures and drawings of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Mobile Application for LCE
As the world is focusing more on the sustainable type of development, the LCA tools
such as life cycle energy and ecological footprint will play a major role in the development of
the world sustainably. Building-integrated photovoltaic systems are found to be generally
encouraging for the decrease in LCE, and hence, more studies should be conducted on them
for a clearer picture of this system. In addition, more work should be done on alternative
building materials so that environmental sustainability can be attained. These life cycle
assessment tools have a wide scope for measuring the sustainability of the system and
hence more parameters should be considered for the wider research of these tools.
Therefore, looking into the complexity of the subject of LCE, a smart mobile application
(App) is developed to assess Life Cycle Energy levels (OE, EE, DE) of residential buildings.
The App uses Java Programming Language (Android 10), with the help of MySQL Database
with the inheritance of data analytics by Tableau. The app dynamically models the data
and can take user geographic location as well as Indian climatic zone automatically. The
application is capable of capturing the carpet area by the use of the intense camera (Deep
Learning Camera). Users can feed customized data to obtain the exact energy values
with high precision. In addition, users can manually select the climate and typology of
building according to their location, and select building area, foundation type, building
envelope materials, and lifespan of the building, etc. Built-in formulas will calculate the
initial and recurring embodied energy, as well as operational energy. Furthermore, with
an option, users can see the pie-chart division of the various energy types. Users can also
find bar charts providing the dynamic forecast of upcoming years with the time interval
of five years. Forecasting data will be embedded and the charts will dynamically change
(every 5 years’ gap) depending on changes in operational energy due to the adaptive
behaviors of users. Increased energy usage in the future due to climate change is also
considered in this App. A few screenshots and a schematic representation of the application
are presented below in Figures A1 and A2, respectively. More of this type of user-friendly
applications are under process at CSIR-CBRI Roorkee as per the societal requirement.
Figure A1. Screenshots of the developed mobile application (App) for life cycle energy.
Figure A2. Schematics of the life cycle energy application.
Appendix B
MATLAB Code
clc
clear all
load(’datafile1’);
dtarorke = model;
m = 100; n = 23,723.15;
e1 = zeros(16,1);
e2 = zeros(16,1);
e3 = zeros(16,1);
e1 = dtarorke(:,1);
e2 = dtarorke(:,2);
e3 = dtarorke(:,3);
eei = zeros(16,1);
for i = 1:16
for j = 1:1
eei(i,j) = e1(i,j) × e2(i,j);
end
end
eer = zeros(16,1);
for i = 1:16
for j = 1:1
eer(i,j) = eei(i,j) × [(m/e3(i,j)) − 1];
end
end
OE = n × m;
eeisum = sum(eei);
eersum = sum(eer);
OEsum = sum(OE);
LCE(i,j) = sum (eei) + sum(eer) + sum(OE);
LCEsum = sum(LCE);
Appendix C
Table A1. Building materials’ embedded energy and properties.
Inventory of Carbon Properties of Different Building

Materials Praseeda et. al. 2015 [8]
and Energy [64] Materials
They are yellowish-white in color. The
FCB 1.20–4.40 MJ/kg - compressive strength ranges from 200 to 220
kg/cm2 .They have good chemical resistance.
They have higher compressive strength and have
FAB 1341.00 MJ/cm3 -
good dimensional stability.
Cement (Portland) 2.38 MJ/kg - -
It has great formability and durability, good
Steel (Gen) 32.24 MJ/kg - tensile and yield strength and thermal
conductivity.
Its properties include porosity, cohesiveness,
Sand 0.037 MJ/kg -
adhesiveness and plasticity.
The size of fine aggregate is 4.75 mm and that of
Aggregate 0.04 MJ/kg -
coarse aggregate is bigger than 4.75 mm.
Polystyrene sheet 86.40 MJ/kg - These are rigid, brittle, and moderately strong.
Plywood - 15.00 MJ/kg It has high strength and dimensional stability.
These have high degree of light transmission and
Glass (float) 7.88 MJ/kg -
good chemical inertness.
This concrete is more durable and has high
Concrete (plain) - 0.95 MJ/kg
compressive strength.
This has high relative strength and high
Concrete (reinforced) - 1.21 MJ/kg
toleration of tensile strain.
Table A1. Cont.
Inventory of Carbon Properties of Different Building

Materials Praseeda et. al. 2015 [8]
and Energy [64] Materials
The standard size of brick taken in India is 190
Bricks (common) - 3.00 MJ/kg
mm × 90 mm × 90 mm
Marble - 2.00 MJ/kg It is durable, long lasting, and easy to maintain.
A good timber gives good sound and is easy to
Timber - 8.50 MJ/kg work on. The texture of good timber is fine and
even.
Clay tile 4.93 MJ/kg - It has low maintenance and is weather-resistant.
It has good dielectric strength and is resistant to
PVC - 77.20 MJ/kg
weathering, chemical rotting, corrosion, etc.
It is capable of being shaped or bent. It has good
Iron - 25.00 MJ/kg
transmission of heat and electricity.
It is a lightweight metal and is
Aluminium (Gen) - 155.00 MJ/kg corrosion-resistant. It is an excellent heat and
electricity conductor.
Its property depends upon the stone type and
Stone - 1.00 MJ/kg climatic conditions which vary from place to
place and where it is used.
It has great dimensional accuracy and design
Concrete precast - 2.00 MJ/kg
flexibility.
The mortar should be water-resistant, and the
Cement mortar (1:4) - 1.21 MJ/kg deformability of mortar should be low. Its
mobility should be good.
It does not retain dust and is skid as well as stain
Ceramic tiles 10.63 MJ/kg -
resistant.
It has good corrosion resistance and has excellent
Copper - 42.00 MJ/kg
heat and electrical conductivity.
They have good resistance to moisture, insects,
Burnt clay bricks 1.30–4.05 MJ/kg - and erosion and create a good room
environment.
It possesses high tensile strength and elasticity,
Steel (reinforcing,
8.90 MJ/kg - and its thermal coefficient is nearly equal to that
sections)
of concrete.
References
1. Mahapatra, R.; Jeevan, S.S.; Das, S. Environment Reader: For University. 2017. Available online: https://www.downtoearth.org.
in/reviews/environment-reader-for-universities-57295 (accessed on 12 February 2021).
2. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the
Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001;
p. 702. ISBN1 978-0521807692. Available online: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ccm..book.....M/abstract (accessed on
12 February 2021)ISBN2 978-0521807692.
3. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner (ORG&CC), India Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
Available online: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/hlo/hlo_highlights.html (accessed on 12 February 2021).
4. Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), Government of India. Available online: http://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/
housingfor-all-by-2022-mission-national-mission-for-urban-housing/ (accessed on 12 February 2021).
5. Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K.K. Life Cycle Energy Analysis of a Multifamily Residential House: A Case Study in Indian
Context. Open J. Energy Effic. 2013, 2, 34–41. [CrossRef]
6. Azzouz, A.; Borchers, M.; Moreira, J.; Mavrogianni, A. Life cycle assessment of energy conservation measures during early stage
office building design: A case study in London, UK. Energy Build. 2017, 139, 547–568. [CrossRef]
7. Kapoor, N.R.; Kumar, A.; Meena, C.S.; Kumar, A.; Alam, T.; Balam, N.B.; Ghosh, A. A Systematic Review on Indoor Environmental
Quality in Naturally Ventilated School Classrooms: A Way Forward. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2021, 1–19. [CrossRef]
8. Praseeda, K.I.; Reddy, B.V.V.; Mani, M. Embodied energy assessment of building materials in India using process and input–output
analysis. Energy Build. 2015, 86, 677–686. [CrossRef]
9. Planning Commission Report (PCR). Report of Task Force on Waste to Energy (Volume I); Government of India: New Delhi,
India, 2014. Available online: http://swachhbharaturban.gov.in/writereaddata/Task_force_report_on_WTE.pdf (accessed
on 12 February 2021).
10. Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council, Department of science and technology (DST), Government
of India. Available online: http://tifac.org.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=39 (accessed on
12 February 2021).
11. Luo, Z.; Cang, Y.; Zhang, N.; Yang, L.; Liu, J. A quantitative process-based inventory study on material embodied carbon
emissions of residential, office, and commercial buildings in China. J. Therm. Sci. 2019, 28, 1236–1251. [CrossRef]
12. Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K.K. Life cycle approach in evaluating energy performance of residential buildings in Indian
context. Energy Build. 2012, 54, 259–265. [CrossRef]
13. Garg, N.; Kumar, A.; Pipralia, S.; Garg, P. Initiatives to achieve energy efficiency for residential buildings in India: A review.
Indoor Built Environ. 2019, 28, 731–743. [CrossRef]
14. Kapoor, N.R.; Tegar, J.P. Human comfort indicators pertaining to indoor environmental quality parameters of residential buildings
in Bhopal. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 5, 2395-0056.
15. Bastianoni, S.; Galli, A.; Niccolucci, V.; Pulselli, R.M. The ecological footprint of building construction. Sustain. City IV Urban. Regen. Sustain.
2006, 93, 345–356. [CrossRef]
16. Raj, B.P.; Meena, C.S.; Agarwal, N.; Saini, L.; Khahro, S.H.; Subramaniam, U.; Ghosh, A. A review on numerical approach to
achieve building energy efficiency for Energy, Economy, and Environment (3E) benefit. Energies 2021, 14, 4487. [CrossRef]
17. Kurian, R.; Kulkarni, K.S.; Ramani, P.V.; Meena, C.S.; Kumar, A. Cozzolino, R. Estimation of Carbon Footprint of Residential
Building in Warm Humid Climate of India through BIM. Energies 2021, 14, 4237. [CrossRef]
18. Kumar, A.; Suman, B.M. Experimental evaluation of insulation materials for walls and roofs and their impact on indoor thermal
comfort under composite climate. Build. Environ. 2013, 59, 635–643. [CrossRef]
19. Kumar, A.; Chani, P.S.; Deoliya, R. Low Embodied Energy Sustainable Building Materials and Technologies. Trans. Tech. Publ.
2015, 632, 13–20. [CrossRef]
20. Kumar, A.; Deoliya, R.; Chani, P.S. Insulating materials for energy savings in buildings. Trans. Tech. Publ. 2015, 632, 1–14.
[CrossRef]
21. Saini, L.; Meena, C.S.; Raj, B.P.; Agarwal, N.; Kumar, A. Net Zero Energy Consumption Building in India: An Overview and
Initiative towards Sustainable Future. Int. J. Green Energy 2021. [CrossRef]
22. Husain, D.; Prakash, R. Life cycle ecological footprint assessment of an academic building. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 2019, 100, 97–110.
[CrossRef]
23. Reddy, B.V.V.; Jagadish, K.S. Embodied energy of common and alternative building materials and technologies. Energy Build.
2003, 35, 129–137. [CrossRef]
24. Moncaster, A.M.; Rasmussen, F.N.; Malmqvist, T.; Wiberg, A.H.; Birgisdottir, H. Widening understanding of low embodied
impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multi-national quantitative and qualitative case studies. J. Clean. Prod.
2019, 235, 378–393. [CrossRef]
25. EN 15643-2. CEN—European Committee for Standardization Sustainability of Construction Works. Assessment of Buildings. Framework
for the Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Calculation Method; CEN—European Committee for Standardization:
Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
26. EN 15978. CEN—European Committee for Standardization, Sustainability Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance
Buildings—Calculation Method; CEN—European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
27. International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) 21929-1. Sustainability in Building Construction—Sustainability Indicators—Part 1:
Framework for the Development of Indicators and a Core Set of Indicators for Buildings; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
28. International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) 21931-10. Framework for Methods of Assessment of the Environmental Performance of
Construction Works—Part 1: Buildings; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
29. Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment-what does the evidence say?
J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 687–700. [CrossRef]
30. Säynäjoki, A.; Junnila, S.; Heinonen, J.; Horvath, A. Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building
sector? Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 013001. [CrossRef]
31. Birgisdottir, H.; Moncaster, A.; Wiberg, A.H.; Chae, C.; Yokoyama, K.; Balouktsi, M.; Malmqvist, T. IEA EBC annex 57 evaluation
of embodied energy and CO2eq for building construction. Energy Build. 2017, 154, 72–80. [CrossRef]
32. Anand, C.K.; Amor, B. Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 408–416. [CrossRef]
33. Bureau of Indian Standards. National Building Code of India, New Delhi, India. 2016. Available online: https://bis.gov.in/index.
php/standards/technical-department/national-building-code/ (accessed on 15 February 2021).
34. Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K.K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1592–1600.
[CrossRef]
35. Kishore, K.N.; Chouhan, J.S. Embodied Energy Assessment and Comparisons for a Residential Building Using Conventional and
Alternative Materials in Indian Context. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 2014, 95, 117–127. [CrossRef]
36. Wackernagel, M.; Rees, W. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth; New Society Publishers: Gabriola, BC,
Canada, 1997. [CrossRef]
37. Liu, M.; Li, W.; Zahng, D.; Su, N. The calculation of equivalence factor for ecological footprints in China: A methodological note.
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2015, 9, 1015–1024. [CrossRef]
38. Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The Keeling Curve: How much CO2 Can the Oceans Take Up? Available online: https:
//scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ (accessed on 12 February 2021).
39. Forest survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Available online: http://fsi.nic.in/details.php?
pgID=sb_62 (accessed on 12 February 2021).
40. Lin, D.; Hanscom, L.; Martindill, J.; Borucke, M.; Cohen, L.; Galli, A.; Lazarus, E.; Zokai, G.; Iha, K.; Eaton, D.; et al. Working
Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts; Global Footprint Network: Oakland, CA, USA, 2018; Available online: https:
//www.footprintnetwork.org/content/uploads/2018/05/2018-National-Footprint-Accounts-Guidebook.pdf (accessed on 12
February 2021).
41. European Environment Agency. EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook—2013. Available online: https:
//www.eea.europa.eu/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2013 (accessed on 12 February 2021).
42. Baidya, S.; Borken-Kleefeld, J. Atmospheric emissions from road transportation in India. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 3812–3822.
[CrossRef]
43. Quesada, J.L.D. Huella Ecológica y Desarrollo Sostenible; Aenor: Madrid, Spain, 2009; ISBN 978-84-8143-517-7. Available on-
line: http://www.administracion.usmp.edu.pe/institutoconsumo/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Huella-Ecol%C3%B3gica-
AENOR.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2021).
44. National Sample Survey Organization. Household Consumption of Various Goods and Services in India 2011-12; NSS 68th
Round. 2014. Available online: http://164.100.161.63/sites/default/files/publication_reports/Report_no558_rou68_30june14.
pdf (accessed on 12 February 2021).
45. The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). Sustainable Building—Design Manual: Vol 2. 2004. Available online: https:
//content.kopykitab.com/ebooks/2016/03/6059/sample/sample_6059.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2021).
46. Waste Management World. 2017. Available online: http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12
/issue-5/features/rebuilding-c-d-waste-recycling-efforts-in-india.html (accessed on 18 July 2021).
47. Bardhan, S. Assessment of water resource consumption in building construction in India. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 144,
93–101. [CrossRef]
48. Bulti, D.T.; Assefa, T. Analyzing ecological footprint of residential building construction in Adama City, Ethiopia.
Environ. Syst. Res. 2019, 8, 1–15. [CrossRef]
49. Working Document of a Project Proposal on Energy Efficient and Renewable Energy Sources Project India; Document TA3–DA ARUN–95-
001/1PDC; Development Alternatives: New Delhi, India, 1995.
50. Prakash, R.; Bansal, N.K. Energy analysis of solar photovoltaic module production in India. Energy Sources 1995, 17, 605–613.
[CrossRef]
51. De Wild-Scholten, M. Energy Payback Times of PV Modules and Systems; Energy Research Centre of The Netherlands, Workshop
Photovoltaik-Modultechnik: Koln, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 26–27. Available online: http://www.solaik.ch/_downloads/
EnergyPaybackTime.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2021).
52. Keoleian, G.A.; Lewis, G. McD. Application of life-cycle energy analysis to photovoltaic module design. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl.
1997, 5, 287–300. [CrossRef]
53. Ito, M.; Kato, K.; Komoto, K.; Kichimi, T.; Kurokawa, K. A comparative study on cost and life-cycle analysis for 100 MW very
large-scale PV (VLS-PV) systems in deserts using m-Si, a-Si, CdTe, and CIS modules. Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 2008, 16, 17–30.
[CrossRef]
54. Baharwani, V.; Meena, N.; Dubey, A.; Brighu, U.; Mathur, J. Life cycle analysis of solar PV system: A review. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Dev. 2014, 4, 183–190. Available online: https://www.ripublication.com/ijerd_spl/ijerdv4n2spl_14.pdf (accessed on
15 February 2021).
55. Pacca, S.; Sivaraman, D.; Keoleian, G.A. Parameters affecting the life cycle performance of PV technologies and systems.
Energy Policy 2007, 35, 3316–3326. [CrossRef]
56. Cucchiella, F.; D’Adamo, I.; Koh, S.C.L. Environmental and economic analysis of building integrated photovoltaic systems in
Italian regions. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 98, 241–252. [CrossRef]
57. Jungbluth, N.; Stucki, M.; Frischknecht, R.; Büsser, S. Part. XII Photovoltaics. Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen für den
ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz. Ecoinvent Report
No. 6-XII; ESU-Services Ltd.: Uster, Switzerland, 2010; Available online: http://esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/06_XII_
Photovoltaic-v2.2plus.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2021).
58. Laleman, R.; Albrecht, J.; Dewulf, J. Life cycle analysis to estimate the environmental impact of residential photovoltaic systems
in regions with a low solar irradiation. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 267–281. [CrossRef]
59. Agarwal, N.; Meena, C.S.; Raj, B.P.; Saini, L.; Kumar, A.; Gopalakrishnan, N.; Kumar, A.; Balam, N.B.; Alam, T.; Kapoor, N.R.; et al.
Indoor Air Quality Improvement in COVID-19 Pandemic: Review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 70, 102942. [CrossRef]
60. Raj, N.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, A.; Goyal, S. Indoor Environmental Quality: Impact on Productivity, Comfort, and Health of Indian
Occupants. In Proceedings of the Abstract Proceedings of International Conference on Building Energy Demand Reduction in
Global South (BUILDER’19), New Delhi, India, 13–14 December 2019; pp. 1–9. Available online: https://nzeb.in/event/builder1
9/ (accessed on 18 July 2021).
61. Alam, T.; Balam, N.B.; Kulkarni, K.S.; Siddiqui, M.I.H.; Kapoor, N.R.; Meena, C.S.; Kumar, A.; Cozzolino, R. Performance
Augmentation of the Flat Plate Solar Thermal Collector: A Review. Energies 2021, 14, 6203. [CrossRef]
62. Gandhi, M.; Kumar, A.; Elangovan, R.; Meena, C.S.; Kulkarni, K.S.; Kumar, A.; Bhanot, G.; Kapoor, N.R. A review on shape-
stabilized phase change materials for latent energy storage in buildings. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9481. [CrossRef]
63. Sharma, A.; Kumar, A.; Kulkarni, K.S. Thermal comfort studies for the naturally ventilated built environments in Indian
subcontinent: A review. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 103242. [CrossRef]
64. Inventory of Carbon & Energy (ICE). Sustainable Energy Research Team (SERT). University of Bath, UK. Available online:
https://ghgprotocol.org/Third-Party-Databases/Bath-ICE (accessed on 18 July 2021).

Ecological Footprint of Residential Buildings in Composite Climate of India-A Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecological Footprint of Residential Buildings in Composite Climate of India-A Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee 247667, India; dr.nrkapoor@outlook.com (N.R.K.);

Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 11949. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111949 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Building’s Life-Cycle Energy (LCE)

LCE = EE(i) + EE(r) + OE + DE, (1)

2.1.1. Building’s Initial Embodied Energy (EE(i) )

EE(i) = ∑m(x) M(x) + E(c) , (2)

2.1.2. Building’s Recurring Embodied Energy (EE(r) )

2.1.3. Building’s Operational Energy (OE)

OE = E(OA) × L(b) , (4)

2.1.4. Building’s Demolition Energy (DE)

DE = E(D) + E(T), (5)

2.2. Building’s Life-Cycle Ecological Footprint (LCEF)

EF = C(x) /Y(x) × e(x) , (6)

Figure 1. LCEF of a building project [22].

Net primary productivity of specific land type(kg/ha)

∑LCEF = LCEF(e & m) + LCEF(t) + LCEF(we) + LCEF(m) + LCEF(built-up) , (8)

gha/ha). site of the project;

Figure 2. Indian map with marked case study locations.

Table 1. Detailed information of the cases considered in this study.

Roorkee Kurukshetra Jammu Jammu Ambala

Roorkee Kurukshetra Jammu Jammu Ambala

4. Results and Discussion

4.1.1. Basic Building Materials

Materials Cement Lime LP Steel Aluminum Glass

4.1.2. Materials Used in Masonry Walls and Energy in Masonry

Burnt Clay Brick Stone Concrete Block Soil-Cement Steam-Cured

Table 4. Different masonry types and their embedded energy.

Type of Burnt Clay Steam Cured Soil Cement

4.1.3. Energy in Mortars

4.1.4. Energy in Flooring and Roofing

4.1.5. LCE and LCEF Reduction Using Solar Photovoltaics

4.2. Building Life-Cycle Energy (LCE)

4.3. Ecological Footprint of the Building Life Cycle (LCEF)

Figure 7. Total LCEF of the five studied houses.

Figure 8. Average annual EF/person of the five studied buildings.

4.4. Generic Model for Life Cycle Energy

Figure 9. Plan of a residential building in Roorkee—Case (R1 ).

Figure 10. Comparison of LCE calculations for validation (Unit: MJ).

Figure A2. Schematics of the life cycle energy application.

Table A1. Building materials’ embedded energy and properties.

Inventory of Carbon Properties of Different Building

Table A1. Cont.

Inventory of Carbon Properties of Different Building

You might also like