See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305217139

Green Building Rating Systems and Whole-Building Life Cycle Assessment:

Comparative Study of the Existing Assessment Tools

Article  in  Journal of Architectural Engineering · July 2016

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000222

CITATIONS READS

20 325

2 authors:

Sami G. Al-Ghamdi Melissa M. Bilec

University of Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh
65 PUBLICATIONS   310 CITATIONS    130 PUBLICATIONS   2,180 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Quantifying Environmental Emissions of Healthcare Services View project

Evaluating Sustainable Disposal Options for Compostable Biopolymers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sami G. Al-Ghamdi on 13 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Green Building Rating Systems and Whole-Building Life
Cycle Assessment: Comparative Study of the Existing
Assessment Tools
Sami G. Al-Ghamdi, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE1; and Melissa M. Bilec, Ph.D.2

Abstract: There is a growing interest in integrating life cycle assessment (LCA) into building design decision making due to LCA’s compre-
hensive and systemic approach to environmental evaluation. Many green building rating systems (GBRSs) use LCA to various degrees. In this
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 07/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

paper, a comparative study was performed to evaluate the LCA software tools available to building designers. A whole-building LCA was per-
formed for a large building using three software LCA tools. The software tools vary in key aspects, such as intended users (e.g., LCA experts
or novices), design stage in which they can be used, and time. The evaluated LCA tools varied significantly in the possibility of their use in
early design and decision making. Some of the applications rely on a bill of materials that changes constantly in design alterations. However,
others showed a greater advantage in that they can be integrated from the beginning of the design process. The comparative LCA results indi-
cated that the impact of LCA software is dependent on the impact category and the precision in the process of material quantities takeoff. The
case study was influenced by the building type and its intense operational energy requirements. Conventional energy efficiency measures,
such as increasing the lighting efficiency, far exceeded what can be done to mitigate the embedded impact of construction materials. Thus,
advancing the requirements of the LCA baseline building and addressing the operational phase in a more comprehensive framework are dis-
cussed. Finally, this paper examines the traditional building’s systems that are usually involved in LCA and the possibility of adding other sys-
tems, such as plumbing, HVAC, and electrical systems, using building information modeling (BIM). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-
5568.0000222. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Green building rating systems (GBRSs); Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED); Life cycle assess-
ment (LCA); Building information modeling (BIM); Environmental impact in buildings.

Introduction and Background engagement in activities associated with green building. Those
activities aim either to certify the building under any known interna-
Buildings provide countless benefits to society; nonetheless, they tional green building rating system or to be constructed to meet the
can have substantial environmental and human health impacts. The certification requirements under a similar system. A substantial
building sector is the largest energy consumer in the United States 28% of the AEC professionals report high levels of green activity
and worldwide (U.S. EIA 2012a). Civil works and building con- engagement, with more than 60% of their work being green or sus-
struction consume 60% of the global raw materials extracted from tainability driven. These high levels of green building activity are
the lithosphere. In Europe, the mineral extractions per capita expected to grow (McGraw-Hill Construction 2013).
intended for buildings accumulate up to 4.8 t per inhabitant per There is growing interest in integrating life cycle assessment
year, which is 64 times the average weight of a person, highlighting (LCA) into building holistic-design decision making due to LCA’s
the need to work toward dematerialization in building (Zabalza comprehensive and systemic approach to environmental evaluation.
Bribián et al. 2011). In the literature, there are many studies that utilize LCA in the anal-
Although the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) ysis of buildings at different levels. Those levels include product
industry is often acknowledged as a low-technology and inefficient selection, systems/process evaluation, and whole-building evalua-
industry (Gallaher et al. 2004), this industry is undergoing profound tion. LCA results in those levels being extended to cover both resi-
and rapid transformation. Illustration of this transformation can be dential and commercial buildings (Buyle et al. 2013; Cabeza et al.
seen in the trend toward green buildings and sustainable develop- 2014). Building LCAs available in the literature show the ability of
ment. For example, 94% of AEC firms report some level of LCA to identify the influential components in the environmental
impact of a product, system, or whole building (Junnila et al. 2006;
Rossi et al. 2012; Scheuer et al. 2003; Wu et al. 2012).
1
Formerly, Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental There are many challenges that practitioners may encounter in
Engineering, Univ. of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261. ORCID: http:// the use of LCA, especially in the context of green building rating
orcid.org/0000-0002-7416-5153. E-mail: [email protected] systems (GBRSs). Those challenges come from the fact that most
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, of the previous studies were done in the United States and Europe,
Univ. of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 (corresponding author). E-mail: with no comparable studies that cover developing countries
[email protected]
(Cabeza et al. 2014; Ortiz et al. 2009). Completing a LCA, espe-
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 4, 2015; approved
on April 26, 2016; published online on July 11, 2016. Discussion period cially a whole-building LCA, is a time- and resource-intensive pro-
open until December 11, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for cess. LCA practice in AEC is not a conventional task to the profes-
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Architectural sionals in the industry. LCA may have beneficial contributions on
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0431. several levels, such as at the predesign, schematic design, and

© ASCE 04016015-1 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 04016015

 design development stages of the design process. Previous studies Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology
suggest that LCA can support architects and engineers in answering (BREEAM) by the U.K. Building Research Establishment (BREEAM
questions that arise throughout the design and construction and 2014), International Green Construction Code (IgCC) by the
assist in their decisions by providing scientific and objective justifi- International Code Council (ICC 2012), Green Globes by Canada ECD
cations (Erlandsson and Borg 2003; van der Lugt et al. 2006). Energy and Environment (GBI 2014), and California Green Building
Those questions include the possibility of comparing different alter- Standards (CALGreen) by the California Building Standards
natives or products during different building phases (i.e., design, Commission (CBSC 2013). Requirements vary from one to another
construction and operation), especially the design phase. and are likely to evolve in future versions.
One additional challenge for designers is the selection of com- For example, in LEED, the most prevalent and commonly used
mercially available tools. Three common tools are the Athena rating system, LCA was integrated as a pilot credit in 2009 for
Impact Estimator for Buildings, KieranTimberlake’s Tally, and building assemblies and materials to encourage the use of environ-
SimaPro. The tools vary systematically in the way they were built, mentally preferable building materials and assemblies. LCA was
user skill required, and the design stage at which they can be used. not only used explicitly through the LCA credit, but was implicitly
Table 1 compares the key elements of the tools; the information in incorporated into the current version of LEED, with likely expan-
the table is from the technical documentation of each tool, except sion in the next versions, given the prominence of Environmental
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 07/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for skill level, which was based on the authors' judgment. The tools Product Declarations (USGBC 2009, 2013).
vary with respect to LCA databases used; for example, Athena pri- In the LCA credit in LEED, the design team has the option to per-
marily draws from U.S. Life Cycle Inventory; Tally, from GaBi; form a whole-building LCA and receive 3 points. The LCA should
and SimaPro, from multiple databases, including Ecoinvent. All cover the project’s structure and enclosure and exclude energy con-
three tools follow the four steps in a standard LCA as established by sumption during the period of the building’s operation. The LCA
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in ISO results should demonstrate a minimum 10% reduction, compared
14040 and 14044 (ISO 1997, 2006). with a baseline building, in at least two self-selected life cycle impact
The primary goal of this paper was to conduct a comparative categories (i.e., acidification of land and water sources; eutrophica-
study to evaluate the LCA tools commercially available to designers tion, in kilograms of nitrogen or kilograms of phosphate), plus reduc-
at different design stages and the use of the tools as a means to meet tion in global warming potential as a mandatory category (USGBC
various GBRS requirements. 2013). Comparison with a baseline building model, such as energy
models, is a prevailing practice in many GBRSs and in some codes
and standards. In LEED, a building can achieve points in the water
LCA and GBRSs
and energy categories by demonstrating reduction beyond a baseline
Since the early 1990s, LCA has been used as an assessment tool in building that was created based on a specified reference standard. For
buildings’ construction sector and has grown and expanded (Fava example, in the energy category, the baseline building must meet
2006). Today, there are many GBRSs that use LCA to assess environ- ASHRAE 90.1-2010, a standard by the American Society of Heating,
mental goals. Some rating systems and/or codes that have LCA provi- Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), American
sions include Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design National Standards Institute (ANSI), and Illuminating Engineering
(LEED) by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC 2013), Building Society of North America (IESNA) (ASHRAE/ANSI/IESNA 2010),

Table 1. Comparison of General Characteristics of the Three LCA Tools Used in the Study

Comparison
category Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings KieranTimberlake’s Tally PRe SimaPro
Level of analysis Whole-building analysis Whole-building analysis Product analysis tool
or type
Building type Industrial, institutional, commercial, residential for Any type, including both new Complex products with complex life cycles
both new construction and major renovation construction and major renovation
LCA stages Material extraction and manufacturing, related Cradle to grave; manufacturing, Cradle to grave; manufacturing, maintenance
transport, on-site construction (energy use þ related maintenance and replacement, and replacement, end of life; operation phase
emissions), operation (energy only), maintenance end of life; operation phase (Multiple operational elements can be mod-
and replacement, demolition and transport to landfill (energy only) eled; only energy was considered.)
LCI database Athena database (cradle to grave), U.S. LCI database GaBi LCI databases U.S. LCI database; Ecoinvent and others
Data location Canada and U.S. region U.S. only U.S. and world
LCIA method EPA TRACI Multiple (EPA TRACI used) Multiple (EPA TRACI used)
Impact categories  Acidification  Acidification potential  Climate change
 Potential global warming  Eutrophication potential  Carcinogens
 Potential human health  Global warming potential  Respiratory organics
 Respiratory effects potential  Ozone depletion potential  Respiratory inorganics
 Ozone depletion  Smog formation potential  Radiation
 Smog potential  Primary energy demand  Ozone layer
 Aquatic eutrophication potential  Ecotoxicity
 Total fossil energy  Acidification/eutrophication
 Land use
Target users Architects, engineers, designers, environmental Architects, engineers LCA practitioners
consultants
Skill level Moderate Advanced level in BIM Advanced

© ASCE 04016015-2 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 04016015

 which is a longstanding standard that has undergone more than 40
years of technical and scientific development.

Today’s Building Design and Construction Industry

Synergies and interconnectedness in the building design process are
critical to green building design. Today’s practitioners work in a
more collaborative work environment. Whole-building design
relies on two components: an integrated design approach and an
integrated team process. Today’s technologies support practi-
tioners, making it easier to realize a green building through an inte-
grated approach. Building information modeling (BIM) is seen as
one such tool/technology that can aid the building stakeholder com-
munity in accomplishing design objectives. BIM is the system of
production and management of a building’s data during its life
cycle; BIM combines three-dimensional (3D) modeling with time Fig. 1. Multiple views of the case-study building MWH; views show
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 07/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and cost (Lee et al. 2006). Although BIM has been available since the actual building and after it was modeled using BIM; total area of the
the late 1980s, it did not evolve as a valuable tool for aiding in meet- building is approximately 291,976 m2 (957,927 ft2), and it consists of
ing sustainability objectives in the building sector until the green three wings on five floors aboveground and one floor underground
building revolution in the 1990s. BIM extends to cover the different (Imagery ©2016 Landsat, Google, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy,
phases of the building design processes, where a massive amount of NGA, GEBCO, Map data ©2016 Google)
data is generated. BIM differs radically from the principle of com-
puter-aided design (CAD) in that BIM models, unlike CAD models,
manage not just graphics, but also information. Although the use of The BIM model was developed using Autodesk Revit for the
BIM has encountered many legal and technical obstacles, BIM entire hospital building based on the CAD drawings that were
demonstrates benefits in the field of professional practice in areas obtained from hospital administration. The building consists of
such as sustainable design, construction, facilities management, and three wings on five floors aboveground and one floor under-
estimating (Becerik-Gerber and Kensek 2010). ground, with a total area of 88,994 m2 (957,927 ft2). To put the
case-study building in perspective, the average U.S. floor space
of inpatient health care buildings was approximately 22,111 m2
Methodology (238,000 ft2) in 2003 and 23,021 m2 (247,800 ft2) in 2012,
according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Commercial
This paper describes a whole-building LCA performed for a large Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) (U.S. EIA
hospital in Pittsburgh using three different process LCA tools: 2003, 2012b). The survey highlights the fact that buildings in the
Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings, Tally, and SimaPro. The United States are generally getting larger with the time. Health
tools vary systematically in the way they were built, user skill care buildings represent approximately 3% of the total floor space
required, and the design stage in which they can be used. The LCAs in all commercial buildings and 6% of the total primary energy
developed in this work represent complete architectural, structural, consumption by commercial buildings. Also, average U.S. energy
and finish systems, and they were used to compare the relative con- expenditures per square foot for the same building type are $2.76,
tributions of building systems to different environmental impacts. whereas MWH spends $3.76 per square foot. For the characteris-
The analysis accounts for the full cradle-to-grave life cycle, includ- tics of the building, MWH has 17,071 m2 (183,754 ft2) in roof
ing material manufacturing, operation/use, maintenance and replace- space. The exterior wall area is 24,540 m2 (264,150 ft2). Fixed
ment, and eventual end of life. It includes the materials and energy windows cover approximately 20% of the exterior walls, with an
used across all life cycle stages of the hospital’s building. The fol- area of 5,135 m2 (55,269 ft2) and approximately 36% of them fac-
lowing sections describe the case-study building and then explains ing north. Operable windows cover approximately 0.6% of the
in detail the procedures performed in each LCA step. exterior walls, with an area of 1,485 m2 (15,988 ft2) and approxi-
mately 18% of them facing north. Skylights cover approximately
Case-Study Building 142 m2 (1,524 ft2) of the roofs. Exterior doors cover approxi-
mately 0.006% of the exterior walls, with an area of 160 m2
The case-study building was Magee-Womens Hospital (MWH). (1,723 ft2). The underground wall area is 4,833 m2 (52,023 ft2),
MWH is a University of Pittsburgh Medical Center specialty hospi- with 18,716 m2 (201,462 ft2) of underground slabs.
tal, catering primarily to women. Magee is one of the top women’s All operational data for MWH were obtained through hospital
hospitals in the United States and is ranked ninth for gynecology, management. The data represent the building's energy consump-
with more than 10,000 babies delivered each year (U.S. News & tion in a whole year, covering various functions inside and outside
World Report 2015). It was chosen as the case study for this paper the building, such as interior/exterior lighting, HVAC, treatment/
because it is a very complex building, and therefore illustrates the pumping, and water heating. Autodesk Green Building Studio
worst-case scenario. The hospital is located in the Oakland neigh- (GBS) Version 2014.2.31.4804 (DOE-2.2-44e4) was used for the
borhood of Pittsburgh and has established green initiatives in recog- analysis and simulation of energy. GBS meets ANSI/ASHRAE/
nition of Practice Greenhealth and the U.S. EPA’s Office of IESNA Standard 90.1-2010, Appendix G, which meets LEED
Children’s Health Protection recommendations. It is currently requirements for calculating a building’s baseline performance
equipped with 360 beds, an emergency room, and ambulatory facili- (ASHRAE/ANSI/IESNA 2010). The MWH building uses natural
ties. A total of 2,500 employees and 1,500 medical staff serve in gas for HVAC and water heating purposes and uses electricity for
this facility (UPMC 2015). Fig. 1 illustrates multiple views of the the rest of its energy requirements. On an annual basis, MWH con-
hospital building after modeling using BIM. sumes 4,326,814 m3 (152,800,000 ft3) of natural gas at a cost of

© ASCE 04016015-3 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 04016015

 $1,036,258 and 32,915 MW·h of electricity at a cost of $2,568,375. were selected mainly from USLCI. However, when unit processes
To provide more context for the case-study building (MHW), the were not available in USLCI, other databases, such as Ecoinvent,
authors note that it is located in the Northeast (Middle Atlantic) of were used (Frischknecht et al. 2005).
the United States, which is classified as an A5: cool-humid weather For the occupancy phase of the MWH building (operational side
zone: 3,000 < HDD 18°C ≤ 4,000 (5,400 < HDD 65°F ≤ 7,200), of the analysis), the selection of the LCI varied in the following
where HDD is the heating degree day, a measurement of the ways. In Athena and Tally, the location (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
demand for energy needed to heat a building. On average, hospitals of the case-study building is already a part of the applications where
in Zone A5 consume 3,095 MJ/m2/year (272.54 kBtu/ft2/year) the energy mixes are considered. However, in SimaPro, the entire
compared to 2,882 MJ/m2/year (253.8 kBtu/ft2/year) nationwide life cycle of energy is modeled, where the LCI unit processes were
(U.S. EIA 2003). To a large extent, this is very similar to the case- selected mainly from USLCI (NREL 2010). The electric power
study building, where MWH utility bills show that the actual con- plant source data were collected for MWH from the U.S. EPA,
sumption was approximately 3,180 MJ/m2/year (280 kBtu/ft2/ eGRID 2006 data, and 2004 Plant Level Data (U.S. EPA 2012).
year). The electricity in that part of Pennsylvania comes from the follow-
ing sources: coal 69.9%, natural gas 3.5%, oil 0.4%, nuclear 23.6%,
Life Cycle Assessment hydro 0.8%, and nonhydro renewables 1.4%.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 07/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The four steps in LCA include goal and scope, life cycle inventory LCIA
(LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation. In The environmental impacts of the inputs and outputs of each pro-
Athena and Tally, there are few options regarding those four steps, cess were calculated using the Tool for the Reduction and
but in the case of SimaPro, there are many options. Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts
(TRACI) in the three different tools. As shown in Table 1, TRACI is
Goal and Scope the only LCIA methodology available in Athena, but there are more
The functional unit of the study is the building of MWH. The refer- methodologies available in Tally and SimaPro, such as IMPACT
ence flow is the amount of material required to produce the hospital 2002þ, BEES, and ReCiPe. TRACI is a midpoint method tool that
building and the energy required for the operational phase over the was developed by the U.S. EPA to facilitate the characterization of
full life of the building. The modeled life of the building was 60 environmental stressors that have the potential to contribute to
years, representing the minimum service life of the building by the impacts (Bare 2002; Sharaai et al. 2010). The TRACI 2.1 characteri-
LEED’s requirements as in Credit: Building Life Cycle Impact zation scheme was used in the three different tools. The impact cate-
Reduction (USGBC 2013). The analysis accounts for the full cra- gories under focus in this study are three impact categories included
dle-to-grave life cycle of the three different LCA tools, including in LEED (USGBC 2013). Global warming potential was a manda-
material manufacturing, maintenance and replacement, and even- tory category, and two other impact categories were selected: acidi-
tual end of life (disposal, incineration, and/or recycling), which cov-
fication of land and water sources and eutrophication.
ers the energy used across all life cycle stages. Major additions/ren-
ovations, such as adding patient wings/towers, were considered as Interpretation
new construction and not included in the LCA. Architectural mate- In this step, ISO 14040 requires a clarification of the limitations and
rials and assemblies include primary materials and all additional evaluation of the assessment considering completeness, sensitivity,
materials required for the product’s manufacturing and use (includ- and consistency checks (ISO 2006). The three different tools vary
ing hardware, sealants, adhesives, coatings, and finishing) up to a in how they display the LCIA results. This variation causes users to
1% cutoff factor by mass, with the exception of known chemicals interpret the results in different ways and perhaps come to differing
that have high environmental impacts at low levels. In these cases, a conclusions and decisions. The following section covers this step
1% cutoff was implemented by impact. (interpretation) in more detail.
LCI
The analysis requires generating material quantities prior to the de- Results and Discussion
velopment of robust LCIs. Each tool provides a different approach
to estimating the material quantities. For Tally, there is a direct link The results and discussion have been divided into two main parts.
with BIM, and the material quantities are completed automatically. The first part qualitatively documents and presents a comparison
The same material quantities from BIM/Tally were then used in of the three tools on five core issues: integration with design capabil-
Athena and SimaPro. ity, transparency in the analysis process, building systems included,
In Athena and SimaPro, the type of materials was set to match geographical area covered, and user LCA experience required. The
what was chosen in Tally to reflect the same building design of second part presents a detailed comparison of whole-building LCA
MWH and ensure as much consistency as possible. For example, results of the case-study building (MWH) from the three different
the same characterization of the brick in the exterior wall was tools, examining embedded and operational environmental impact.
matched in the three different tools: Tally, Athena, and SimaPro.
Here, Tally plays an important role in helping to customize the bill
Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages
of materials before inputting data into Athena and SimaPro. The
selection of LCI unit processes was limited in Athena and Tally, All three tools follow the four steps in a standard LCA established
where the user can only select the type of the material with no by the ISO in ISO 14040 and 14044 (ISO 1997, 2006). However,
options to change the data source or details. However, in SimaPro, the different LCA tools varied significantly in the possibility of their
the LCI unit processes could be selected manually to provide more use in early design and decision making. For example, whereas
detail on the source of the data. In this study, the LCI unit processes the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings and SimaPro rely on a
in Tally were from GaBi databases, whereas in Athena, data were bill of materials that changes constantly in design alteration,
from Athena’s database and U.S. Life Cycle Inventory–based data- KieranTimberlake’s Tally allows for adjustment of these changes,
bases (USLCI) (NREL 2010). In SimaPro, the LCI unit processes and therefore can be integrated from the beginning of the design

© ASCE 04016015-4 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 04016015

 Table 2. Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages of the Three Tools Used in the Study

LCA tool/comparison component Integration with design Transparency Building systemsa Geographic area LCA experience
Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings 2 1 2 1 3
KieranTimberlake’s Tally 3 1 1 2 3
PRe SimaPro 1 3 3 2 1
Note: Advantages and disadvantages on a scale of 1–3, where 3 means greater advantages.
Building systems that can be included in the LCA: structural, architectural, finishes, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing.
a

process. Table 2 summarizes perceived advantages and disadvan- Geographic Area

tages of each application for the five key criteria. All three tools are lacking in this area. This is because it is typical for
LCI data and LCIA approaches to represent a geographic region or
the country of origin. For example, in the LCIA methodologies, it is
Integration with Design clear that TRACI was designed for North America. Also, tools are of-
As mentioned earlier, Tally was the most powerful among the three ten country-centric [for example, Athena (Canada), GaBi (Germany),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 07/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tools because it is fully integrated with design in the BIM environ- TEAM (France), LCAiT (Sweden)]. Some software programs, such
ment. The user needs to link the materials in the BIM environment as SimaPro and GaBi, were designed so that they can handle an
to the materials database in Tally. For example, different layers in unlimited number of LCI databases and LCIA methodologies and so
the wall sections (i.e., brick, insulation, concrete masonry unit, dry- they can add data from external sources, such as the Ecoinvent data-
wall) must be linked to the specific materials in the Tally database base. This is somewhat better, but the challenge in this paper is,
(i.e., specify the type of brick or insulation). Any changes in the because GBRSs are currently evolving and undergoing international
building design can be accounted for in the Tally-integrated BIM/ expansion, the application of whole-building LCA is difficult, partic-
LCA and can be compared with the previous design. Tally at this ularly in developing countries, where the expected growth in the
point gives the designer a great opportunity to directly make deci- number of buildings is larger. Therefore, all three tools have limita-
sions and make changes based on the LCA results. Although most tions in this area.
BIM environments provide solutions for modeling and calculation
of the energy consumed in the designed building, Tally depends on LCA Experience
the manual data entry of linking energy data (consumption during Athena and Tally require minimal training, and the design team can
building operation) from BIM to Tally. In contrast, Athena and likely use them. For example, in Tally, results are displayed in terms
SimaPro rely on a completed bill of materials so that the designer and concepts that building professionals can understand, such as
can then start conducting the LCA analysis. This makes the analysis the use of the Construction Specifications Institute’s (CSI's)
process isolated from the design process. Although Athena provides MasterFormat. Athena displays the results of all of the building ele-
a template for the process of exporting and importing from the BIM ments divided by the environmental category and the building life
environment, it can be a time-consuming procedure. cycle stage (embedded/operational). In contrast, SimaPro displays
the results divided by the environmental category but does not rec-
ognize the building life cycle stages. In cases such as this one,
Transparency SimaPro requires users to have more experience, adding to its cost.
SimaPro is the most powerful tool in this area, allowing the user to Because of their ease of use, Athena and Tally may improve the
see the inputs and outputs for all processes. It gives users the ability deployment of LCA in the building design and construction indus-
to participate in the development of the LCA model, passing try. With respect to the cost of the three tools, Athena is free to down-
through the four main phases of LCA, from goal and scope, to LCI, load and use with a free registration with the Athena Sustainable
to LCIA, and finally to interpretation. In Athena and Tally, users Materials Institute (2016). However, Tally and SimaPro require a
cannot participate or go through the experience of those four commercial license. For example, Tally costs $1,200 for a floating
phases; the LCA results are generated directly after the elements of license that lasts 1 year from the date of purchase (KT Innovations et
the building have been entered into the tool. There is a trade-off al. 2016). As mentioned earlier, Tally works in a BIM environment,
between simplification and transparency of results. Specifically, it which may add to the cost of the BIM application costs; Autodesk
is important to have access to a full view of the supply chain in LCA Revit costs approximately $4,000 for an annual subscription
results so that identification of hot spots can be made. (Autodesk 2016). SimaPro costs vary based on education and pro-
fessional versions (compact, analyst, and developer), and those ver-
sions vary in the modeling and analysis capabilities. A single-user
Building Systems
indefinite license costs approximately $7,500 for compact, $11,000
Athena and SimaPro have the advantage in this area. In Athena and
for analyst, and $14,400 for developer; some of the LCI databases
SimaPro, users can model any system, as long as it is possible to iden-
will have additional costs to update and maintain the subscription
tify materials and takeoff quantity. In some cases (such as with the (Earthshift 2016).
case-study building), a building contains a large amount of plumbing
and ductwork or advanced systems that are neglected despite the pres-
ence of design decisions and the possibility of LCA utilization. Tally, Case-Study LCA Results
however, limits its scope of the analysis to cover the building’s archi- The results of the whole-building LCAs for MWH provide an im-
tectural, structural, and finish systems. There is no way to add any portant opportunity for decision makers to modify the design
other systems or products if they are not already recognized by Tally. according to the LCA results. The LCA results indicate that the
Including all systems and products, such as structural, architectural, impact of LCA software is dependent on the impact category and
finishes, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing, is important to support the precision in the process of material quantities takeoff. The
system thinking and integrated design approaches. results can be split into two main parts: embedded environmental

© ASCE 04016015-5 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 04016015

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 07/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Embedded environmental impact of the case-study building comparing Tally, Athena, and SimaPro; results in this figure cover the entire
building, including complete architectural, structural, and finish systems of the case-study building; the figure has three panels representing three dif-
ferent impact categories: global warming potential (required by LEED), acidification potential, and eutrophication potential; impact categories are in
different units; stacked columns represent different materials in the building and are grouped by CSI's MasterFormat

impact (Fig. 2) and operational environmental impact (Fig. 3). represent approximately 65% of the total mass of the building, the
Embedded impact covers the building’s construction materials and significant impacts came from metals, and finishes—illustrating the
assemblies (pre- and postoccupancy), whereas operational impact importance of using LCA. In the case-study building, finishes repre-
covers the building’s energy consumption (during occupancy). sent 29% of global warming potential, whereas metals represent
only 17% of the same impact category. As shown in Fig. 2, openings
Embedded Environmental Impact represent 9% of the global warming potential, while they represent
Fig. 2 represents the embedded environmental impacts of the case- only 1.5% of the total mass of the building.
study building using Tally, Athena, and SimaPro. The LCA results The results may be interpreted with two lenses. Although in all
in this figure cover the entire building, including the complete archi- three tools (Tally, Athena, and SimaPro) the LCIA method (TRACI)
tectural, structural, and finish systems of MWH. The figure has was used, there were differences between the LCI databases in terms
three panels representing three different impact categories: global of the source of the data, the date of the updates, and the geographic
warming potential (required by LEED), acidification potential, and area represented. In contrast, the effort in matching the inputs in the
eutrophication potential. The stacked columns represent different three tools (in terms of the quantities and the type of construction
materials in the building, grouped by CSI's MasterFormat. materials) to represent the same case study resulted in a relatively
Fig. 2 shows that the variation among the three different tools close distribution of the results over different group of materials.
was, in some cases, greater than the 10% required by LEED, high-
lighting the goal of this work. The difference between the lowest and
highest results in each impact category was as follows: the global Operational Environmental Impact
warming potential category, approximately 10%; the acidification Hospitals have the highest energy consumption per square foot in
potential category, 16%; and the eutrophication potential category, the buildings sector, annually producing more than 2.5 times the
22%. The results of the grouped CSI MasterFormat were relatively energy intensity and carbon dioxide emissions of commercial office
close as a percentage of total impact. However, as a total, results buildings and causing more than 146 kg/m2 (30 lb/ft2) of CO2 emis-
were varied. The results from SimaPro were the highest, followed sions (U.S. DOE 2008). This high-energy consumption is due to the
by Tally and then Athena. For example, in the global warming poten- high space heating, cooling, and ventilation loads; the continuous
tial category, the results were 31,050 for SimaPro, 30,050 for Tally, 24-h operation for the majority of the facilities; and the large
and 28,050 for Athena, all in metric tons of CO2 equivalent and over amount of medical equipment used (Balaras et al. 2007). Fig. 3
the life cycle of the building. Whereas concrete and masonry illustrates the operational environmental impact of MWH as

© ASCE 04016015-6 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 04016015

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 07/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Operational environmental impact of the case-study building; results in this figure cover the operational phase of MWH; the figure has three
panels representing three different impact categories, as required by LEED: global warming potential, acidification potential, and eutrophication
potential; the impact categories are in different units as indicated on top of each group of columns; stacked columns represent different components
during operation, such as lighting, HVAC, water heating, and pumping; results here represent real consumption of the building as documented through
utility bills; different components on the stacked columns represent the results of the energy simulation model

reported by the three different tools, with a comparison of the three Conclusion
environmental impact categories.
Fig. 3 also shows that the variation among the three different After creating a BIM of a complex building, LCAs were completed
tools was even greater than the variation in the previous section using three different software tools (Tally, Athena, and SimaPro) to
(i.e., Fig. 2). The results varied by approximately 17% in the global ascertain the differences between the results and provide guidance
warming potential category, 23% in the acidification potential cate- for designers and LCA practitioners. The significance of this por-
gory, and 21% in the eutrophication potential category. The highest tion of the research is underscored by the high usage of BIM, with
numbers again were from SimaPro, followed by Tally and then 88% of BIM users surveyed reporting that they expect their firms to
Athena. For example, in the global warming potential category, the use BIM on a green retrofit project (McGraw-Hill Construction
results are 2,224,569 for SimaPro; 2,141,800 for Tally; and 2010). The combination of BIM and LCA can expand the LCA
1,846,870 for Athena, all in metric tons of CO2 equivalent. The boundary (i.e., including HVAC systems), which can meet the
comparison here includes the operational phase only, which has needs of a variety of users in a variety of contexts. Furthermore,
fewer variables (inputs and outputs) compared to the embedded potential for integrated energy modeling with BIM can provide
phase. In the case of MWH, the building type (i.e., health care build- the designer with at least a screening tool for energy performance.
ing) played a significant role in increasing the percentage of the Although the integration between BIM and Tally can truly assist
operational impact compared to the embedded impact. In general, designers in conducting LCAs, there is a level of concern, as with
in most buildings, 70–85% of the environmental impacts are from any modeling tool, that the generated black-box LCA results have
the use phase. However, in the case of MWH, operational impacts the potential to disconnect the decision maker from environmen-
represent 99% of the total global warming potential of the building tal performance, because an important value of conducting LCA
over its 60-year life span. is uncovering environmental hot spots through deeper LCA
The results should be considered in light of certain limitations. interpretation.
As with any building LCA model, the accuracy of the results is diffi- The results identified many challenges in the requirements of the
cult to determine. There are inherent issues with mapping available various GBRSs. One of the most important challenges relates to the
life cycle unit processes with materials that are actually installed. comparison with a baseline LCA building with relatively small per-
Furthermore, each LCA tool draws data from different databases, centage improvements to obtain credit. The results indicate that,
adding additional levels of uncertainty. given the same building, the LCA results produced by the three

© ASCE 04016015-7 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 04016015

 software tools varied in the global warming potential category by Fava, J. A. (2006). “Will the next 10 years be as productive in advancing
approximately 10% in the embedded impact, as shown in Fig. 2, life cycle approaches as the last 15 years?” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.,
and approximately 17% in the operational impact, as shown in Fig. 11(S1), 6–8.
Frischknecht, R., et al. (2005). “The ecoinvent database: Overview and
3. This reinforces the need not only to refine LCA methods for
methodological framework.” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.., 10(1), 3.
GBRS, but also to obtain more robust data sets for building systems Gallaher, M. P., O’Connor, A. C., Dettbarn, J. L., and Gilday, L. T.
and products. At a minimum, GBRSs should include LCA uncer- (2004). Cost analysis of inadequate interoperability in the U.S. capi-
tainty analysis in their systems, which some LCA software tools al- tal facilities industry, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Technology
ready have. The need for future research is pivotal for GBRS to Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
overcome challenges in data quality and uncertainty in LCA. Gaithersburg, MD.
Finally, this study focused on the external factors of the case-study GaBi [Computer software]. Thinkstep, Echterdingen, Germany.
building and did not cover other important issues, such as the rela- GBI (Green Building Initiative). (2014). Green globes for new construction—
Technical reference manual, version 1.3, Portland, OR.
tionship with ambient air and indoor air quality. Indoor air quality is
Green Building Studio [Computer software]. Autodesk, San Rafael, CA.
an important element, and future work needs to expand the scope of ICC (International Code Council). (2012). International green construction
these analyses. code: A member of the international code family, International Code
Council, American Society of Heating Refrigerating Air-Conditioning
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 07/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Engineers, U. S. Green Building Council, Illuminating Engineering

Society of North America, Country Club Hills, IL.
Acknowledgments
Impact Estimator for Buildings [Computer software]. Athena Sustainable
Materials Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
The authors acknowledge the University of Pittsburgh’s Mascaro ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (1997). “Environmental
Center for Sustainable Innovation for their support. This material management—Life cycle assessment: Principles and framework.” ISO
is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation 14044, Geneva.
under EFRI-SEED (1038139). Any opinions, findings, and ISO (International Organization for Standardization). (2006). “Environmental
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are management—Life cycle assessment: Requirements and guidelines.” ISO
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of 14040, Geneva.
the National Science Foundation. Junnila, S., Horvath, A., and Guggemos, A. A. (2006). “Life-cycle assess-
ment of office buildings in Europe and the United States.” J. Infrastruct.
Syst., 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2006)12:1(10), 10–17.
References KT Innovations, Thinkstep, and Autodesk. (2016). “Tally download.”
hhttp://choosetally.com/download/i (Feb. 16, 2016).
Lee, G., Sacks, R., and Eastman, C. M. (2006). “Specifying parametric
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating and Refrigerating and Air-
building object behavior (BOB) for a building information modeling
Conditioning Engineers)/ANSI (American National Standards
system.” Autom. Constr., 15(6), 758–776.
Institute)/IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America).
LCAiT [Computer software]. CIT Ekologik, Gothenburg, Sweden.
(2010). Standard 90.1-2010: Energy standard for buildings except low-
McGraw-Hill Construction. (2010). “Green BIM—How building informa-
rise residential buildings, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA.
tion modeling is contributing to green design and construction.”
Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. (2016). “Our software and data.”
SmartMarket Rep., Bedford, MA.
hhttp://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/overview/i (Feb. 16, 2016).
McGraw-Hill Construction. (2013). “World green building trends.”
Autodesk. (2016). “Products—Revit Family.” hhttp://www.autodesk.com
SmartMarket Rep., Bedford, MA.
/products/revit-family/subscribei (Feb. 16, 2016). NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). (2010). US life-cycle in-
Balaras, C. A., Dascalaki, E., and Gaglia, A. (2007). “HVAC and indoor
ventory database (USLCI), Golden, CO.
thermal conditions in hospital operating rooms.” Energy Build., 39(4), Ortiz, O., Castells, F., and Sonnemann, G. (2009). “Sustainability in the
454–470. construction industry: A review of recent developments based on LCA.”
Bare, J. C. (2002). Developing a consistent decision-making framework by Constr. Build. Mater., 23(1), 28–39.
using the U.S. EPA's TRACI, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Revit [Computer software]. Autodesk, San Rafael, CA.
New York. Rossi, B., Marique, A. F., Glaumann, M., and Reiter, S. (2012). “Life-cycle
Becerik-Gerber, B., and Kensek, K. (2010). “Building information model- assessment of residential buildings in three different European locations,
ing in architecture, engineering, and construction: Emerging research basic tool.” Build. Environ., 51, 395–401.
directions and trends.” J. Prof. Issues in Engrg., 10.1061/(ASCE)EI Scheuer, C., Keoleian, G. A., and Reppe, P. (2003). “Life cycle energy and
.1943-5541.0000023, 139–147. environmental performance of a new university building: Modeling
BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment challenges and design implications.” Energy Build., 35(10), 1049–1064.
Methodology). (2014). BREEAM new construction—Technical manual: Sharaai, A. H., Mahmood, N. Z., and Sulaiman, A. H. (2010). “Life cycle
Version: SD5073, Watford, U.K. impact assessment (LCIA) using TRACI methodology: An analysis of
Buyle, M., Braet, J., and Audenaert, A. (2013). “Life cycle assessment in potential impact on potable water production.” Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci.,
the construction sector: A review.” Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 4(9), 4313–4322.
26, 379–388. SimaPro [Computer software]. PRe Sustainability, Amersfoort, The
Cabeza, L., Rincón, L., Vilariño, V., Perez, G., and Castell, A. (2014). “Life Netherlands.
cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of build- Tally [Computer software]. KieranTimberlake, Philadelphia.
ings and the building sector: A review.” Renewable Sustainable Energy TEAM [Computer software]. PwC—Ecobilan, Neuilly-sur-Seine, France.
Rev., 29(4), 394–416. UPMC (University of Pittsburg Medical Center). (2015). “Magee-Womens
CBSC (California Building Standards Commission). (2013). California green Hospital of UPMC.” hhttp://www.upmc.com/locations/hospitals/Magee
building standards code: California code of regulations, International /Pages/default.aspxi (April 6, 2015).
Code Council, Sacramento, CA. U.S. DOE. (2008). “EnergySmart hospitals: Creating energy efficient, high per-
Earthshift. (2016). “SimaPro Pricing.” hhttp://www.earthshift.com/software formance hospitals.” hhttp://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications
/simapro/pricingi (Feb. 16, 2016). /pdfs/energysmarthospitals/esh_factsheet.pdfi (Apr. 6, 2015).
Erlandsson, M., and Borg, M. (2003). “Generic LCA-methodology applica- U.S. EIA (Energy Information Administration). (2003). Commercial build-
ble for buildings, constructions and operation services—Today practice ings energy consumption survey (CBECS), Office of Integrated Analysis
and development needs.” Build. Environ., 38(7), 919–938. and Forecasting, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC.

© ASCE 04016015-8 J. Archit. Eng.

J. Archit. Eng., 04016015

 U.S. EIA (Energy Information Administration). (2012a). Annual energy .usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/pa/magee-womens-hospital-of-upmc
outlook, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Dept. of -6232460/gynecologyi (Apr. 6, 2015).
Energy, Washington, DC. van der Lugt, P., van den Dobbelsteen, A. A. J. F., and Janssen, J. J. A.
U.S. EIA (Energy Information Administration). (2012b). Commercial (2006). “An environmental, economic and practical assessment of bam-
buildings energy consumption survey (CBECS), Office of Integrated boo as a building material for supporting structures.” Constr. Build.
Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC. Mater., 20(9), 648–656.
U.S. EPA. (2012). “Plant level data.” eGRID 2012 V 1.0 - with year 2009 Wu, H. J., Yuan, Z. W., Zhang, L., and Bi, J. (2012). “Life cycle energy con-
data, Washington, DC. sumption and CO2 emission of an office building in China.” Int. J. Life
USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council). (2009). LEED reference guide for Cycle Assess., 17(2), 105–118.
green building design and construction, Washington, DC. Zabalza Bribián, I., Valero Capilla, A., and Aranda Usón, A. (2011).
USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council). (2013). LEED reference guide for “Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analy-
building design and construction, LEED v4.0, Washington, DC. sis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the
U.S. News & World Report. (2015). “Best hospitals—Top ranked hospitals eco-efficiency improvement potential.” Build. Environ., 46(5),
for gynecology: Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC.” hhttp://health 1133–1140.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SDL Portal on 07/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE 04016015-9 J. Archit. Eng.

View publication stats J. Archit. Eng., 04016015